Us Property, No Trespassing

[+Celticwulf]

Hmmm...contact info on cache page for "approver"...

 

Hypothetically, let's say the info is there. Then, let's assume that unlike the great friendliness we have with cacher's today, a person comes into this activity with a grudge (against hider, against caching in general, against life who knows). Now lets say this person makes it thier mission to "confirm" all approvals, and at the same time let the approvers know about the "dangers" and "evils" of caching. Suddenly the person who thought this a nice harmless activity immediatly fears this activity and requires that the cache be removed immediatly and goes out to warn everyone else they know about this activity. Hypothetically of course

 

Or how about the simpler explination of people not wanting their contact info on the web for all to see? Why do we all have special cacher names anyway?

 

<edit> I swear I saw pictures that the hider has put on the cache page that shows the direction of the cache and both directions down the road, but I could be mistaken <edit>

 

*goes back to looking through the requirements for hiding to see where it says that contact information must be provided on cache page*

 

 

Celticwulf

Edited January 18, 2006 by celticwulf

[+Allen_L]

Why do we all have special cacher names anyway?

I don't know.

[+Celticwulf]

Why do we all have special cacher names anyway?

I don't know.

D'Oh!

 

most?

 

Celticwulf

[dblnaknak]

 

This is stupid already. We provided enough proof. Heres the picture looking towards the cache. If it is required I will provide pictures of the run down empty military building behind it, which is surrounded by trash from people dumping illegally.

 

Click on my name,

click on geocaches,

click on traditional caches

click on looks can be deciving.

 

Now you have access to the photos and the explination and link to the media release of the base closure.

Edited January 18, 2006 by dblnaknak

[+Celticwulf]

Mark me down in the 'silent majority' on dblnaknak's side...looks like a very nice cache hide and in a nice place too...just wish I could wander that way and log it...someday perhaps

 

and yes, I'm silent unless you've got a reader that reads off this text to you

 

Celticwulf

[+Team GeoBlast]

How does a cacher who arrives at the location and sees those "No Trespassing" signs know it is okay to proceed past those signs?

 

Just wondering . . .

I think this is a valid point.

 

The cache description should detail this for people who don't live in Hawaii and are vacation caching. If you look back at the original post, this was not the core issue presented to the cache owner Ed Chen was asking for -a name- of the authorizing authority from the cache owner.

 

For the sake of argument, let's say the cache owner did state that this is public property (you have to understand that this is like saying the Statue of Liberty is open to the public to someone that lives in New York) and put a bold print warning on the cache page about the existence of the signs. Would you say that this would be sufficient? Or taking into consideration the very recent history between the cache owner and Ed (see link provided earlier) would you expect the cache owner to treat this as an arbitrary request?

 

As for the signs being brand new, we really have no way of verifying their age. I do not doubt their existence either given the overall condition that the military left this area in. I can, however, tell you from personal knowledge that the information on them is very outdated.

 

In closing, I will say that I would view this particular issue in a completely different light without the history behind it. The game cannot exist without guidelines and rules. But the guidelines and rules should not give people the right to harass others and should be in place to advance the quality of the game. It is not fair to throw a topic like this out there for dicussion without putting all of the history for consideration as well.

[+briansnat]

Perhaps Edchen could simply post a pic of the sign and put this poor old horse to rest.

The existence of signs is irrelevant. In my state there are many thousands of acres of recently purchased public land that still have the old no tresspassing signs up. The state, county, or town that bought the land simply doesn't have the manpower to get out there and take down the signs. Looks like we have a similar issue here.

 

If the land is known to be open to the public, that should be enough.

Edited January 18, 2006 by briansnat

[+Lil Devil]

Old or new, the existence of any No Trespassing signs means the cache should be archived, IMO.

 

If the area is really open now, the cache hider should petition the proper authorities to remove the signs.

 

What would happen if a member of the local press chose to do an article on geocaching and out of chance happened to choose this cache to find. You can bet his article would then be centered around the issue that geocachers are in the habit of ignoring No Trespassing signs

[+Elde]

This is stupid already. We provided enough proof. Heres the picture looking towards the cache.

No, actually - you haven't provided any proof. I can (or at least could back in day) stand in the middle of an area that marines will seriously consider shooting you for being in, (see note below), and take dozens of pictures across the hundreds of acres - and not one will show a single "No Trespassing" or "Authorized Personell Only" sign - those signs are out on the perimeter and on the buildings. (Of course this assumes photography is allowed there - it isn't.)

Click on my name, click on geocaches, click on traditional caches click on looks can be deciving.

 

Now you have access to the photos and the explination and link to the media release of the base closure.

None of which does anything to assure that the signs are not new (as claimed by the OP) and currently enforced. There are places near me which are former military land and are currently off limits to the public, even though areas adjacent are former military land and accessible to the public. You mention talking to the base police - but they have no jurisdiction there. The people you need to be talking to are the State Patrol or the Department of Natural Resources or whoever has actual jurisdiction over the land. The rules for cache placement require permission from whoever currently owns the land - folks who used to own the land need not apply.

 

Do you actually have permission from the current owners/responsible authorities? In all your posting, I find a lack of discussing that issue telling. Instead, you and your supporters rely on personal attacks, changing the subject, low resolution maps, press releases, and discussions with previous owners.

 

<Note: to forestall discussion of something that's really a side issue - the facility in question is one used for assembling SLBM's and their warheads. It's a huge place, but the building are few and far apart for safety reasons - to prevent an explosion in one from affecting another.>

 

Edited to add note.

Edited January 18, 2006 by Elde

[salmoned]

If the signs are moot, perhaps the issue is moot. I never disagreed that the property is public, just as it was public when it was a military base. However, the tax map key, a government document (City & County), clearly indicates that the parcel in question (91013015:0000) is owned by the "United States of America", not the "State of Hawaii", or any other entity. Also, the tax map key claims itself to be current as of 2005 (updated annually). Other parcels in the former base are indicated as owned by vaious private organizations, "Hawaiian Homelands", etc., suggesting the records are current. Of course, they may not be, but who should know better than the property taxing authority?

 

Addendum: Thanks, Elde, I didn't think anyone else noticed the personal attacks were all inbound toward me, and not reciprocal. I can't say there is much enforcement in the area formerly known as Barber's Point NAS, because of the jurisdiction issues. I really only wonder why a cache with serious issues can't be moved to an area without issues, especially when it is not dependent on any particular location. As well, why is there no mention of the issues in the listing? I only wish hiders would consider the possible consequences to the seekers in advance.

 

In any case, I will photograph the signs, left and right of the cache, as well as the old Navy signs. I expect to post in about a week (take photos, process film, scan, upload). That will prove, at least, that the cache owner lied when stating there were no signs, when they are IN the photos posted on the listing, and, as previously alluded to, one lie very well suggests another.

Edited January 18, 2006 by edchen

[+Team GeoBlast]

Old or new, the existence of any No Trespassing signs means the cache should be archived, IMO.

 

---- That's a pretty broad stroke considering we are talking about 220 countries around the world, don't you think? Land issues are unique where ever you go.

 

If the area is really open now, the cache hider should petition the proper authorities to remove the signs.

 

---- It's not that easy as the signs are part of a massive clean up that will cost millions of dollars. The area is going to be redeveloped and there's hundreds of people involved, not one clear cut owner to petition.

 

What would happen if a member of the local press chose to do an article on geocaching and out of chance happened to choose this cache to find. You can bet his article would then be centered around the issue that geocachers are in the habit of ignoring No Trespassing signs

 

---- I am not sure where you live but living your life in fear of what the press would think or say is a recipe for a very paranoid existence. At least it would be in Hawaii where this cache is located. The worst case scenario for local Geocaching in Hawaii would be for the press to get wind of how people in the local GeoCaching community are acting towards eachother.

[salmoned]

 

Old or new, the existence of any No Trespassing signs means the cache should be archived, IMO.

 

---- That's a pretty broad stroke considering we are talking about 220 countries around the world, don't you think? Land issues are unique where ever you go.

 

If the area is really open now, the cache hider should petition the proper authorities to remove the signs.

 

---- It's not that easy as the signs are part of a massive clean up that will cost millions of dollars. The area is going to be redeveloped and there's hundreds of people involved, not one clear cut owner to petition.

 

What would happen if a member of the local press chose to do an article on geocaching and out of chance happened to choose this cache to find. You can bet his article would then be centered around the issue that geocachers are in the habit of ignoring No Trespassing signs

 

---- I am not sure where you live but living your life in fear of what the press would think or say is a recipe for a very paranoid existence. At least it would be in Hawaii where this cache is located. The worst case scenario for local Geocaching in Hawaii would be for the press to get wind of how people in the local GeoCaching community are acting towards eachother.

I agree, there's no need to archive the cache as it can very simply be moved to an appropriate location. I don't believe land issues are unique everywhere you go, however. If the hider has permission for the cache, he could likely get permission to remove the signs at no expense to the owner as well - save 'em some money! Geocaching is a delicate flower, and may be crushed at any time by abusers and/or malcontents. Abiding by the rules and etiquette are the only means at our disposal to nurture this activity.

 

Well, it looks like the cache owner has admitted the signs are there (in the cache listing)! A good step toward contrition. Now, he claims they are pre-base closure. It doesn't take much cogitation to realize pre-closure, the entire base, including the road fronting the cache was "U.S. Property". As well, the previous signs, "Authorized Personnel Only" adequately protected the area, pre-closure. So, logically, and as a matter of fact to my knowledge, the signs were not there pre-closure, as they had no relevant significance to convey at that time. If anyone cares to disagree, I am willing to go photograph both the new and the old signs, if you think it might make an iota of difference to your opinion. Frankly, due to my archaic technology, I'm glad I no longer need provide proof of the signs' existence.

Edited January 18, 2006 by edchen

[+sbell111]

I was just talking to my wife about this thread. She said that if she lived in Hawaii, she'd have better things to do than whine about this cache.

 

You know, she's right.

 

Put a note on the cache page to ignore the signs. Problem solved.

[salmoned]

Again, if the title to the property is held in the name of the United States of America, as indicated in the 'tax map key' records, then the new signs should be respected, if not by the hoi polloi, then at least by Groundspeak. Need more be said?

[+Chuy!]

I am a private consultant who has been commissioned by the current landowner/developer to develop the area for -public- recreational use.  If this

is not a good enough source  for you then I suppose I will throw your dinner in the trash.  You never intended to listen to reason or facts anyway.

 

Aloha.

Ouch, that last sentence is mean! Throw my dinner away; don't trust what you'd put in it.

 

Your commisson don't mean the area is currently open to the public. And once you begin development, you probably don't want folks in the area looking for a tin box - so maybe the cache should remain archived until delelopment is completed.

As stated above, can you kindly remove the "No Trespassing" signs"? or do you not have authority to do that?

Edited January 18, 2006 by Chuy

[dblnaknak]

What the hell is hoi polloi? It is intresting how people who have never been to the area have so much to comment on. Blabber all you want, I'm going to the beach... Oh, the only military activity on the base is National Guard, which all facilitys belong to the state, and Navy housing, and a commissary, and a shoppette.

[+Miragee]

Dictionary.com

 

hoi pol·loi n.

 

The common people; the masses.

 

[Greek, the many : hoi, nominative pl. of ho, the; see so- in Indo-European Roots + polloi, nominative pl. of polus, many; see pel-1 in Indo-European Roots.]

[+Chuy!]

Just read the logs for the first time.

Admin disabled the cache on 12-10-05 to, "give the owner a chance to either get permission for it to be there or relocate it.

 

The owner re-enabled the cache the same day.

 

On 12-19-05, the cache had two finds. The cachers don't mention anything about the "No Trespassing" signs. It appears the cache was relocated? These cachers were the first to find, but I thought edchen had found it. Was his find deleted by the owner? Why?

 

You don't have to answer; I've had enough too.

[dblnaknak]

Edchen never found this one.

[+Harry Dolphin]

A very nice map indeed. However, it bears no resemblance to the "official tax map key" which clearly indicates actual ownership of each individual parcel - this one remaining in the hands of the US Government. The "US Property, No Trespassing" signs are new, while the old Navy signs,"Authorized Personnel Only", have been crumpled, though not destroyed.

Curious that you haven't posted the tax maps, with date. If it's that important to you, get your film developed quickly. Reluctance to provide any substantive proof makes your case 'hearsay' at best. I thought that the maps that I found gave good indication that the area in question is now public property. I have seen nothing to contradict my evidence.

 

As BrianSnat said, there are many parcels of land in north Jersey that have been pruchaased by the state and local governments, that are now public land. The old 'No Trespassing' signs are still there. Most of the cache hiders in those areas mention that the signs no longer apply.

[+Team GeoBlast]

I am a private consultant who has been commissioned by the current landowner/developer to develop the area for -public- recreational use.  If this

is not a good enough source  for you then I suppose I will throw your dinner in the trash.  You never intended to listen to reason or facts anyway.

 

Aloha.

Ouch, that last sentence is mean! Throw my dinner away; don't trust what you'd put in it.

 

Your commisson don't mean the area is currently open to the public. And once you begin development, you probably don't want folks in the area looking for a tin box - so maybe the cache should remain archived until delelopment is completed.

As stated above, can you kindly remove the "No Trespassing" signs"? or do you not have authority to do that?

I don't have any authority to do anything. I am working on the design for the redevelopment of the common recreation spaces. We are coordinating with several of the developers that are going to building in this area and some of the management companies that have taken over the existing housing. One of the main challenges our design team has faced for the past 4 years is getting approval to move forward on the smallest of issues. That is why "getting permission" to do anything in this area hits closer to home and it borderline laughable to hear someone suggest. One thing that I can tell you for certain is that you could put a cache in this area and it will remain undisturbed for at least three and probably five years at the current pace.

[+The red-haired witch]

Old or new, the existence of any No Trespassing signs means the cache should be archived, IMO.

 

 

So, if anyone puts up a "No trespassing" sign near a cache, it has to be archived? Even if the place is known to be public land and the person who placed the sign had no authority to do so?

 

That makes no sense.

 

I'm not saying this is what happened in the cache this thread is about, I've never been there.

 

In my area, though, I've come across a few "no trespassing" signs when I was on trails and I knew I was on public land. When the signs are written in felt marker on cardboard (as were most of the ones I saw), it's easy to know they are fake. But, nowadays, any kid could print some official looking signs and post them to try and keep some public trails for their private use.

[CoyoteRed]

The old 'No Trespassing' signs are still there. Most of the cache hiders in those areas mention that the signs no longer apply.

And what if the signs are new? How would you know?

 

Secondly, the owner doesn't mention the signs are obsolete. As far as I would know he knows nothing about them and therefore doesn't know there shouldn't be any access.

 

The very reason I mention this is because it has happened here. The cache owner did research and the research--some official county documents--indicated some property was public. He placed the cache. The property was, in fact, private and the owners upon seeing folks on their land put up signs. Guess what. Cachers ignored the signs.

 

Now, did this foster good will? Nope.

 

This is what I'm saying. If there are signs and they can be ignored then cite the reasons.

[dblnaknak]

The cache is about 50 to 60 feet of the side of a public road. You could throw a rock from the road and hit the cache.

[+Miragee]

But, is one of those "No Trespassing" signs between the public road and the cache?

[dblnaknak]

NOPE. NO SIGN BETWEEN THEM, around them, near them, ar above them.

[+CamoCacher]

Okay I was going to stay quiet on this one but.....

 

First off wether the signs are old or new really don't matter, they are there and that is what matters period! Many farms, miltiary instilations, etc in MN and other lands have signs posted No Tresspassing etc, many of these signs are many are not new and you better bet you'd better obey them because if you don't and get caught depending on who owns the land could get you in hot water.

 

Second to that Ft McCoy, WI has a PUBLIC road right through the middle, civilians better stay on that road or other authorized areas (theres a camp ground on some of the land and a "park". There are sings so many feet apart warning the civilans. One reason the area is off limits is major Arty is used on the base and it is dangerous, there are no major road blocks, gates, fence, etc to keep people out of some of the areas.

 

Third some places in MN (one installation which will remain unnamed) which is fenced but has some limited use to the community) has areas on it posted no tresspassing. Wanna know why....still cleaning up ammunition, chemical dumping spots from WAY back when which have been capped, etc.

 

If I saw these sings and there is nothing on the cache page, even if I was a local cacher, but esp since I would be vacationing and caching, I'd stay away and log an SBA when I returned.

[+sillygirl & jrr]

I was just talking to my wife about this thread. She said that if she lived in Hawaii, she'd have better things to do than whine about this cache.

 

You know, she's right.

...

Your wife is right! And for the most part we do, which may bewhy not that many "locals" have posted here.

 

I'm just posting to remind everyone of the bigger picture. In our short (less than a year) time in geocaching, we have found the Hawaii caching community to be a very responsible & responsive group. I could provide you several examples where hiders voluntarily archived or moved caches that were thought to be in dangerous or other wise questionable locations. But that would be boring.

 

Seriously, can't we assume (dangerous I know) that geocachers are responsible folks who don't encourage fellow cachers to break laws to find their caches? Having said that, we all have different comfort levels. We have aborted searches for all sorts of reasons: from we were uncomfortable in a deserted area, to we prefer to do that sort of rock climbing with a harness & protection... When we turn on the GPSr we don't turn off our common sense right?

 

The bottom line here is that the placement of this cache has been discussed locally and approved by the reviewer. If the OP believes access to the area should be restricted, then he (and anyone else who feels that way) can simply elect not to look for it.

JRR

[+CamoCacher]

What the hell is hoi polloi? It is intresting how people who have never been to the area have so much to comment on. Blabber all you want, I'm going to the beach... Oh, the only military activity on the base is National Guard, which all facilitys belong to the state, and Navy housing, and a commissary, and a shoppette.

While it may only be a NG base I'd not suggest this measn any less. In fact that tells me the signs MUST be new and to be listened too. As a member of the military, for the NG, the consequences can be quite harsh for accessing one of our bases here without proper authority or permission.

 

Since it has now been disclosed that some of this land is actviley being controlled by the miltiary I haved to agree if the signs are new the cache should be archieved.

[+CamoCacher]

In addition to Naval aviation squadrons, NAS Barbers Point hosts the Coast Guard, which has been part of the station as a Coast Guard Air Facility since 1949. The facility was designated Coast Guard Air Station Barbers Point in 1965 and is the only Coast Guard aviation unit located in the 14th Coast Guard District. Their C-130 Hercules aircraft and H-65 Dolphin helicopters perform search and rescue missions within the central Pacific maritime region. Aircraft also conduct water pollution patrols in the Hawaiian Islands.

 

The Coast Guard Air Station, a tenant of the NAS, remained at Barbers Point, which now serves general aviation on Oahu and hosts units of the Hawaii National Guard. The Navy has retained 1,100 acres for military housing and family support facilities. The 2,150 acres ceded to Hawaii is now the Kalaeloa Community Development District.

 

http://gis.hicentral.com/website/parcelzoning/viewer.htm

Which is the City and County of Honolulu Department of Planning and Permiting

 

Searched for the TMK 91013015:0000 provided and this is what I got in about 5 secs.

 

OWNER

 

Owner Information

91013015:0000

Name: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Type: Fee Owner

Percent Owner:

Assessment Notice Address: >

City:

State:

Country:

Zip:

 

PROPERTY INFO

 

Property Information

91013015:0000

Building Value: 0

Building Exempt: 0

Land Value: 24,021,200

Land Exempt: 24,021,200

Land Classification: Improved Residential

Unit Number: 0

Acre: 68.632

Square Feet: 0

 

BUILDING PERMITS:

No building permits meeting the criteria you entered were found. Please try again.

 

ZONING INFO:

 

TMK: 9-1-013:015

 

Historical TMK Sequence:

 

Area (sq ft): 2989610.

 

Area (acres): 68.632

 

Lot Number:

 

Ohana:

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

LAND CONTROL CODES

 

 

Code Type Code Description

FLOOD ZONE FIRM ZONE D

HEIGHT LIMIT FEDERAL JURISDICTION

HISTORIC SITE REGISTER NO

LOT RESTRICTIONS NONE

SPECIAL DISTRICT NOT IN SPECIAL DISTRICT

STATE LAND USE URBAN DISTRICT

STREET SETBACK NONE

ZONING (LUO) F-1 MILITARY & FEDERAL PRESERVATION

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

FACILITIES

 

 

Facility Code Year Built No. of Floors Total Floor Area

 

No data available.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

TMK SEPARATIONS

 

 

Activity Code Census Tract Census Block

 

No data available.

 

 

Address List:

[dblnaknak]

camo you should read all of the prior posts before you post.

[+Night Stalker]

I noticed that an earlier post requested a picture of the no trespassing signs that started this thread. I still don't see any pictures being posted. The only picture I have seen posted does not show any signs. Until I see a picture of these signs and where they are in relation to the cache I have to assume that this whole thing is b*llsh*t!

[+Elde]

What the hell is hoi polloi? It is intresting how people who have never been to the area have so much to comment on.

Whether we've been to the area or not is utterly irrelevant. What matters is we have a cache that appears to be problematic - and the problem (requiring the finder to ignore 'No Trespassing' signs) is one that potentially has repercussions involving all geocachers. This has been explained at least once upthread.

The cache is about 50 to 60 feet of the side of a public road. You could throw a rock from the road and hit the cache.

So what? In the county where I live there are literally miles of public road you could throw a rock 50 to 60 feet from and have it land in a place where you are not allowed to go.

 

I find it disturbing that in answer to the charges laid, yourself and your fellow cachers can only reply with irrelevancies, snide comments, and an insistence that it's none of our business because we don't live there. It's very telling.

[+CamoCacher]

camo you should read all of the prior posts before you post.

I did and you all are claiming it does not belong to the US Govertment while athe DPP of Honolulu is VERY CLEAR that it DOES IN FACT belong to the US Govertment. Sorry but I'm more likely to believe a GOV agency before an anonomous poster.

[+Jennifer&Dean]

I am a private consultant who has been commissioned by the current landowner/developer to develop the area for -public- recreational use.  If this

is not a good enough source  for you then I suppose I will throw your dinner in the trash.  You never intended to listen to reason or facts anyway.

 

Aloha.

Ouch, that last sentence is mean! Throw my dinner away; don't trust what you'd put in it.

 

Your commisson don't mean the area is currently open to the public. And once you begin development, you probably don't want folks in the area looking for a tin box - so maybe the cache should remain archived until delelopment is completed.

As stated above, can you kindly remove the "No Trespassing" signs"? or do you not have authority to do that?

I don't have any authority to do anything. I am working on the design for the redevelopment of the common recreation spaces. We are coordinating with several of the developers that are going to building in this area and some of the management companies that have taken over the existing housing. One of the main challenges our design team has faced for the past 4 years is getting approval to move forward on the smallest of issues. That is why "getting permission" to do anything in this area hits closer to home and it borderline laughable to hear someone suggest. One thing that I can tell you for certain is that you could put a cache in this area and it will remain undisturbed for at least three and probably five years at the current pace.

I'm reading this as "you can't get permission to place a cache here due to bureacrocacy, so just place it anyway and don't worry about the land owner."

 

BS! And I don't mean Brian.

 

And don't tell me that since I'm not local I can't have a say. All Geocaches in the US follow the same guidelines in general, and with local guidelines overrulling only in instances that the approvers know about. Several folks have mentioned and now posted tax records showing the land is owned by the US Gov't, not some redevelopement group. The OP has stated that they only have a disposble camera and it will be a little while before they can get photos taken, developed, scanned and posted. I'm willing to wait for the photos to see the signs.

But I can't believe that the locals believe that caches should be OK if they are placed without permission on land whose owner (it seems) they cannot agree on. Sure it is a drive by cache, just off the road, in the brush, but it still needs to be held to the same guidelines that other caches are held to. And in this case, since the cache has been brought to the attention of the public, then greater scrutiny is gonna be lavished upon it, calling for greater proofs of permission and legality.

 

Sure, they guy who started the thread may just be making trouble, but if the cache owner is telling folks to ignore signs and go ahead and trespass on gov't property, there is an issue. So, did the owner get permission from the US gov't to place the cache? Are the signs really there? Is this cache worth arguing about? (I don't know, but it makes for interesting reading.)

I don't care who started it. I want to know who can come forward and explicitly state that permission has been granted, that the signs are not there, and that noone should be bothering their heads about this cache. And I'm not seeing this happen, which discourages me.

-J

[+Team GeoBlast]

In addition to Naval aviation squadrons, NAS Barbers Point hosts the Coast Guard, which has been part of the station as a Coast Guard Air Facility since 1949. The facility was designated Coast Guard Air Station Barbers Point in 1965 and is the only Coast Guard aviation unit located in the 14th Coast Guard District. Their C-130 Hercules aircraft and H-65 Dolphin helicopters perform search and rescue missions within the central Pacific maritime region. Aircraft also conduct water pollution patrols in the Hawaiian Islands.

 

The Coast Guard Air Station, a tenant of the NAS, remained at Barbers Point, which now serves general aviation on Oahu and hosts units of the Hawaii National Guard. The Navy has retained 1,100 acres for military housing and family support facilities. The 2,150 acres ceded to Hawaii is now the Kalaeloa Community Development District.

 

http://gis.hicentral.com/website/parcelzoning/viewer.htm

Which is the City and County of Honolulu Department of Planning and Permiting

 

Searched for the TMK 91013015:0000 provided and this is what I got in about 5 secs.

 

OWNER

 

Owner Information

91013015:0000

Name: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Type: Fee Owner

Percent Owner:

Assessment Notice Address: >

City:

State:

Country:

Zip:

 

PROPERTY INFO

 

Property Information

91013015:0000

Building Value: 0

Building Exempt: 0

Land Value: 24,021,200

Land Exempt: 24,021,200

Land Classification: Improved Residential

Unit Number: 0

Acre: 68.632

Square Feet: 0

 

BUILDING PERMITS:

No building permits meeting the criteria you entered were found. Please try again.

 

ZONING INFO:

 

TMK: 9-1-013:015

 

Historical TMK Sequence:

 

Area (sq ft): 2989610.

 

Area (acres): 68.632

 

Lot Number:

 

Ohana:

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

LAND CONTROL CODES

 

 

Code Type Code Description

FLOOD ZONE FIRM ZONE D

HEIGHT LIMIT FEDERAL JURISDICTION

HISTORIC SITE REGISTER NO

LOT RESTRICTIONS NONE

SPECIAL DISTRICT NOT IN SPECIAL DISTRICT

STATE LAND USE URBAN DISTRICT

STREET SETBACK NONE

ZONING (LUO) F-1 MILITARY & FEDERAL PRESERVATION

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

FACILITIES

 

 

Facility Code Year Built No. of Floors Total Floor Area

 

No data available.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

TMK SEPARATIONS

 

 

Activity Code Census Tract Census Block

 

No data available.

 

 

Address List:

Let me start by thanking everyone for their opinions on land use in Hawaii, no tresspassing signs in general, but mostly for taking the time to share your widely varied experiences about no tresspassing signs this thread. This topic is indeed a very dear topic to anyone who has done any amount of GeoCaching. This is will be my last post on this subject as I think we have covered it very well.

 

While I leave this thread feeling that I have learned a lot of new things, there are a few strong convictions that I brought with me that have been reinforced by some of the comments (such as the quoted post here) and that is that land issues are very complex and unique in different areas of the planet. If I ever was tempted to jump into a this type of disscussion in regards to an area in which I do not reside or have not done very indepth research, this pretty much took care of that urge.

 

As I have mentioned before, I am a consultant who is dealing with land issues very close to this cache. I don't know a lot about a lot of things but this is one area where I do have inside knowledge. To see a GeoCacher, who resides in Minnesota or even Hawaii, doing an internet search on a tax map and offering it as absolute proof of who controlls the land, it's access, and it's future is, well, comical from where I sit here in Hawaii.

 

Yes, the land is in fact owned by the US goverment but what the tax map doesn't show is that they have leased it or in the case of other parcells (note that this parcell was about 1/20th of land in Barbers Point), to the private sector. This is not special or inside knowledge if you read the papers here. The shortest lease that I am aware of is 99 years. These leases are all different and I admit that I don't know about each and every one of them, but the one constant I can guarantee across the board is that they give up all control of access to the property.

 

While I am glad it branched into areas that are common among all GeoCachers, the origin of this discussion is a direct extention of local beef between two people in Hawaii. Ed Chen continues to deny this (still trying to pull of you in) but his motivation is clear to anyone paying the least bit of attention or has any personal experience with him. Ed is seeking support for his actions on a national level (he refers to you as the silent majority) because has found zero support on a local level for his agressive and rude behaviors to local cachers. Without drawing anymore attention to Ed, this is no way an isolated incident. If you GeoCache in Hawaii, it's a forgone conclusion you have been confronted by him for some reason. It is an insult to continue to suggest that it is unrelated and he carries to ill will towards the owner of the cache in question. If you have doubts of this please do not take my word for it, you can read all about it and draw your own conclusions. Make sure you note the dates in which incident start and the beginning of this thread.

 

Warm Aloha to all,

 

Team GeoBlast

[+Jennifer&Dean]

Does the agency leasing this property from the US Gov't know of the cache and have they given express permission for caches to be placed on property they are managing? Are there signs saying No Trespassing that the cache owner is telling folks to ignore?

 

The second question is more important to me than the first. If someone tells me to ignore signs saying "Danger" or "No Trespassing" or "Munitions Range" (examples) I would be concerned about their sanity and common sense, and question the placement.

-J

[+CamoCacher]

In addition to Naval aviation squadrons, NAS Barbers Point hosts the Coast Guard, which has been part of the station as a Coast Guard Air Facility since 1949. The facility was designated Coast Guard Air Station Barbers Point in 1965 and is the only Coast Guard aviation unit located in the 14th Coast Guard District. Their C-130 Hercules aircraft and H-65 Dolphin helicopters perform search and rescue missions within the central Pacific maritime region. Aircraft also conduct water pollution patrols in the Hawaiian Islands.

 

The Coast Guard Air Station, a tenant of the NAS, remained at Barbers Point, which now serves general aviation on Oahu and hosts units of the Hawaii National Guard. The Navy has retained 1,100 acres for military housing and family support facilities. The 2,150 acres ceded to Hawaii is now the Kalaeloa Community Development District.

 

http://gis.hicentral.com/website/parcelzoning/viewer.htm

Which is the City and County of Honolulu Department of Planning and Permiting

 

Searched for the TMK 91013015:0000 provided and this is what I got in about 5 secs.

 

OWNER

 

Owner Information

91013015:0000

Name:  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Type:  Fee Owner

Percent Owner: 

Assessment Notice Address:  >

City: 

State: 

Country: 

Zip: 

 

PROPERTY INFO

 

Property Information

91013015:0000

Building Value:  0

Building Exempt:  0

Land Value:  24,021,200

Land Exempt:  24,021,200

Land Classification:  Improved Residential

Unit Number:  0

Acre:  68.632

Square Feet:  0

 

BUILDING PERMITS:

No building permits meeting the criteria you entered were found. Please try again.

 

ZONING INFO:

 

TMK:  9-1-013:015 

 

Historical TMK Sequence:   

 

Area (sq ft):  2989610. 

 

Area (acres):  68.632 

 

Lot Number:   

 

Ohana:   

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 

LAND CONTROL CODES

 

 

Code Type  Code Description

FLOOD ZONE  FIRM ZONE D

HEIGHT LIMIT  FEDERAL JURISDICTION

HISTORIC SITE REGISTER  NO

LOT RESTRICTIONS  NONE

SPECIAL DISTRICT  NOT IN SPECIAL DISTRICT

STATE LAND USE  URBAN DISTRICT

STREET SETBACK  NONE

ZONING (LUO)  F-1 MILITARY & FEDERAL PRESERVATION

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 

FACILITIES

 

 

Facility Code  Year Built  No. of Floors  Total Floor Area

 

No data available.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 

TMK SEPARATIONS

 

 

Activity Code  Census Tract  Census Block

 

No data available.

 

 

Address List:

Let me start by thanking everyone for their opinions on land use in Hawaii, no tresspassing signs in general, but mostly for taking the time to share your widely varied experiences about no tresspassing signs this thread. This topic is indeed a very dear topic to anyone who has done any amount of GeoCaching. This is will be my last post on this subject as I think we have covered it very well.

 

While I leave this thread feeling that I have learned a lot of new things, there are a few strong convictions that I brought with me that have been reinforced by some of the comments (such as the quoted post here) and that is that land issues are very complex and unique in different areas of the planet. If I ever was tempted to jump into a this type of disscussion in regards to an area in which I do not reside or have not done very indepth research, this pretty much took care of that urge.

 

As I have mentioned before, I am a consultant who is dealing with land issues very close to this cache. I don't know a lot about a lot of things but this is one area where I do have inside knowledge. To see a GeoCacher, who resides in Minnesota or even Hawaii, doing an internet search on a tax map and offering it as absolute proof of who controlls the land, it's access, and it's future is, well, comical from where I sit here in Hawaii.

 

Yes, the land is in fact owned by the US goverment but what the tax map doesn't show is that they have leased it or in the case of other parcells (note that this parcell was about 1/20th of land in Barbers Point), to the private sector. This is not special or inside knowledge if you read the papers here. The shortest lease that I am aware of is 99 years. These leases are all different and I admit that I don't know about each and every one of them, but the one constant I can guarantee across the board is that they give up all control of access to the property.

 

While I am glad it branched into areas that are common among all GeoCachers, the origin of this discussion is a direct extention of local beef between two people in Hawaii. Ed Chen continues to deny this (still trying to pull of you in) but his motivation is clear to anyone paying the least bit of attention or has any personal experience with him. Ed is seeking support for his actions on a national level (he refers to you as the silent majority) because has found zero support on a local level for his agressive and rude behaviors to local cachers. Without drawing anymore attention to Ed, this is no way an isolated incident. If you GeoCache in Hawaii, it's a forgone conclusion you have been confronted by him for some reason. It is an insult to continue to suggest that it is unrelated and he carries to ill will towards the owner of the cache in question. If you have doubts of this please do not take my word for it, you can read all about it and draw your own conclusions. Make sure you note the dates in which incident start and the beginning of this thread.

 

Warm Aloha to all,

 

Team GeoBlast

Find it comical all you want until I posted that it was IN FACT owned by the US Govertment there are many statements by your fellow hawiians and even the reviewer that he was under the impression it was owned by the State of Hawii which has now come to light to be a falacy in which the story now changes to you know it is owned by the US Govertment and is leased out. Interesting how the story has changed and evolved as other information comes to light - from both sides of the situation.

 

One qoute even seems to suggest clearly it is not US GOV land: Geo blast states : None of us have shown any reservations what so ever in saying that this is no longer US Government Property and the signs are outdated and meaningless as the infastructure.

[salmoned]

1. I bear no ill-will towards any cachers, local or national. I checked the tax map key before taking any action on this cache. I didn't post a link to it because it's readily accessed information.

 

2. I never found the cache, I couldn't move myself to disobey the signs. The signs border the roadside, the cache is located between two of them (there are 4 or more). The owner has admitted the signs are there, after weeks of denying their existence, by telling seekers to ignore them in his listing. I'm not posting photos of the signs, because they have now been stipulated by all parties.

 

3. Geoblast, the areas that have been leased have the leasees listed as owners in the tax map key, otherwise who would pay the taxes due? Certainly not the United States of America! Your adamant ignorance of reality is astounding (No, that's not a slur, just a statement of fact).

 

4. Anyone who takes a 6 year old newspaper article as a better source of information than the current tax map key - I feel sorry for your lack of wisdom.

 

5. I thank those who have thought enough of this issue to investigate the details. A cache on state or local land only affects the state or local area, a cache on federal property affects geocachers on a national level. Since no reasonable action prevailed when I brought this matter to local attention, I brought it here for discussion.

 

6. I don't know if this parcel is now owned by the US government or not, having not seen the actual and current deed. However, I believe enough doubt exists that the cache should be moved to a location without 'issues'.

 

Addendum - I am most disturbed by the fact that the cache owner has knowingly deceived the reviewer and the caching community by claiming no signs were posted - even providing photos (which showed the signs edge-on) as proof. If this were an isolated incident... well, better to avoid further controversy, eh?

Edited January 19, 2006 by edchen

[+sbell111]

You know, just because you say that something is not a slur, doesn't make it so.

[salmoned]

True, but you can judge for yourself the validity of the statement, having before you all the information necessary. DNFs are not a slur on anyone's character either, yet why are so few willing...?

Edited January 19, 2006 by edchen

[dblnaknak]

I never decieved anyone. The signs are old belonging to the old occupation. I provided enough proof for the reviewer and that is all that matters. The 1999 article was the turn over from military to state and nothing has chanced since. There are no munitions ( not that kind of base), no holes, no danger in the area. If you walk to the back of that area there is a paintball field where the old go cart track used to be. After the base closed the SCCA used to use the area for races. <...moderator edit...> Better yet, I'm not moving it. So go ahead and waste your time making your jail house attourney assumptions from what ever state you are in. By the way there is about 2500 miles of ocean between us and the states.

Edited January 19, 2006 by Quiggle

[+Quiggle]

From the Forum Guidelines

 

Some things to keep in mind when posting:

 

Respect: Respect the guidelines for forum usage, and site usage. Respect Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, yourself, fellow community members, and guests on these boards. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they deserve the same respect.

 

Foul Language and obscene images will not be tolerated. This site is family friendly, and all posts and posters must respect the integrity of the site.

 

Personal Attacks and Flames will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad, general attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

 

Please keep it civil.

[+Team GeoBlast]

In addition to Naval aviation squadrons, NAS Barbers Point hosts the Coast Guard, which has been part of the station as a Coast Guard Air Facility since 1949. The facility was designated Coast Guard Air Station Barbers Point in 1965 and is the only Coast Guard aviation unit located in the 14th Coast Guard District. Their C-130 Hercules aircraft and H-65 Dolphin helicopters perform search and rescue missions within the central Pacific maritime region. Aircraft also conduct water pollution patrols in the Hawaiian Islands.

 

The Coast Guard Air Station, a tenant of the NAS, remained at Barbers Point, which now serves general aviation on Oahu and hosts units of the Hawaii National Guard. The Navy has retained 1,100 acres for military housing and family support facilities. The 2,150 acres ceded to Hawaii is now the Kalaeloa Community Development District.

 

http://gis.hicentral.com/website/parcelzoning/viewer.htm

Which is the City and County of Honolulu Department of Planning and Permiting

 

Searched for the TMK 91013015:0000 provided and this is what I got in about 5 secs.

 

OWNER

 

Owner Information

91013015:0000

Name:  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Type:  Fee Owner

Percent Owner: 

Assessment Notice Address:  >

City: 

State: 

Country: 

Zip: 

 

PROPERTY INFO

 

Property Information

91013015:0000

Building Value:  0

Building Exempt:  0

Land Value:  24,021,200

Land Exempt:  24,021,200

Land Classification:  Improved Residential

Unit Number:  0

Acre:  68.632

Square Feet:  0

 

BUILDING PERMITS:

No building permits meeting the criteria you entered were found. Please try again.

 

ZONING INFO:

 

TMK:  9-1-013:015 

 

Historical TMK Sequence:   

 

Area (sq ft):  2989610. 

 

Area (acres):  68.632 

 

Lot Number:   

 

Ohana:   

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 

LAND CONTROL CODES

 

 

Code Type  Code Description

FLOOD ZONE  FIRM ZONE D

HEIGHT LIMIT  FEDERAL JURISDICTION

HISTORIC SITE REGISTER  NO

LOT RESTRICTIONS  NONE

SPECIAL DISTRICT  NOT IN SPECIAL DISTRICT

STATE LAND USE  URBAN DISTRICT

STREET SETBACK  NONE

ZONING (LUO)  F-1 MILITARY & FEDERAL PRESERVATION

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 

FACILITIES

 

 

Facility Code  Year Built  No. of Floors  Total Floor Area

 

No data available.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 

TMK SEPARATIONS

 

 

Activity Code  Census Tract  Census Block

 

No data available.

 

 

Address List:

Let me start by thanking everyone for their opinions on land use in Hawaii, no tresspassing signs in general, but mostly for taking the time to share your widely varied experiences about no tresspassing signs this thread. This topic is indeed a very dear topic to anyone who has done any amount of GeoCaching. This is will be my last post on this subject as I think we have covered it very well.

 

While I leave this thread feeling that I have learned a lot of new things, there are a few strong convictions that I brought with me that have been reinforced by some of the comments (such as the quoted post here) and that is that land issues are very complex and unique in different areas of the planet. If I ever was tempted to jump into a this type of disscussion in regards to an area in which I do not reside or have not done very indepth research, this pretty much took care of that urge.

 

As I have mentioned before, I am a consultant who is dealing with land issues very close to this cache. I don't know a lot about a lot of things but this is one area where I do have inside knowledge. To see a GeoCacher, who resides in Minnesota or even Hawaii, doing an internet search on a tax map and offering it as absolute proof of who controlls the land, it's access, and it's future is, well, comical from where I sit here in Hawaii.

 

Yes, the land is in fact owned by the US goverment but what the tax map doesn't show is that they have leased it or in the case of other parcells (note that this parcell was about 1/20th of land in Barbers Point), to the private sector. This is not special or inside knowledge if you read the papers here. The shortest lease that I am aware of is 99 years. These leases are all different and I admit that I don't know about each and every one of them, but the one constant I can guarantee across the board is that they give up all control of access to the property.

 

While I am glad it branched into areas that are common among all GeoCachers, the origin of this discussion is a direct extention of local beef between two people in Hawaii. Ed Chen continues to deny this (still trying to pull of you in) but his motivation is clear to anyone paying the least bit of attention or has any personal experience with him. Ed is seeking support for his actions on a national level (he refers to you as the silent majority) because has found zero support on a local level for his agressive and rude behaviors to local cachers. Without drawing anymore attention to Ed, this is no way an isolated incident. If you GeoCache in Hawaii, it's a forgone conclusion you have been confronted by him for some reason. It is an insult to continue to suggest that it is unrelated and he carries to ill will towards the owner of the cache in question. If you have doubts of this please do not take my word for it, you can read all about it and draw your own conclusions. Make sure you note the dates in which incident start and the beginning of this thread.

 

Warm Aloha to all,

 

Team GeoBlast

Find it comical all you want until I posted that it was IN FACT owned by the US Govertment there are many statements by your fellow hawiians and even the reviewer that he was under the impression it was owned by the State of Hawii which has now come to light to be a falacy in which the story now changes to you know it is owned by the US Govertment and is leased out. Interesting how the story has changed and evolved as other information comes to light - from both sides of the situation.

 

One qoute even seems to suggest clearly it is not US GOV land: Geo blast states : None of us have shown any reservations what so ever in saying that this is no longer US Government Property and the signs are outdated and meaningless as the infastructure.

The issue is and has always been control of access (hence permission) with this cache and areas within Barbers Point, where you say the signs exist. I was correct in my previous statement and I am correct now. There's several different ownership/leasehold scenarios existing right now in both this area and Iroquois Point. But again, and I repeat, there is one constant. Access. The property is no longer a military base and access is not controlled by the US Government . I am sorry that this doesn’t fit into the advancement of your own personal smear campaign against the owner of the cache but this is a fact.

 

Hopefully, I have clarified what I was saying for you. Is there anyone else you'd like to throw into “the lair lair pants on fire” sweepstakes while you are at it? Why does everyone become a lair when it comes to refuting anything you say? How can a person become ignorant and disrespectful so fast if they do not take kindly to you getting in their face?

 

Let's refocus for a moment on your posting the fact that you are not upset at the cache owner while we have watched you spew venom at him for almost 2 weeks now? Now you claim that demanding -a name of the person- that granted permission is not argumentative or vindictive? Please!

 

I’ve got another question for you. Why not just pass on the cache and go find another one? Barbers Point is a complete hellhole, full of trash, hot, and dusty. I am sure there's plenty better placed caches that you would be more comfortable finding close to where you are. Or… is this in fact the last cache in Hawaii that you haven't found?

[dblnaknak]

In addition to Naval aviation squadrons, NAS Barbers Point hosts the Coast Guard, which has been part of the station as a Coast Guard Air Facility since 1949. The facility was designated Coast Guard Air Station Barbers Point in 1965 and is the only Coast Guard aviation unit located in the 14th Coast Guard District. Their C-130 Hercules aircraft and H-65 Dolphin helicopters perform search and rescue missions within the central Pacific maritime region. Aircraft also conduct water pollution patrols in the Hawaiian Islands.

 

The Coast Guard Air Station, a tenant of the NAS, remained at Barbers Point, which now serves general aviation on Oahu and hosts units of the Hawaii National Guard. The Navy has retained 1,100 acres for military housing and family support facilities. The 2,150 acres ceded to Hawaii is now the Kalaeloa Community Development District.

 

http://gis.hicentral.com/website/parcelzoning/viewer.htm

Which is the City and County of Honolulu Department of Planning and Permiting

 

Searched for the TMK 91013015:0000 provided and this is what I got in about 5 secs.

 

OWNER

 

Owner Information

91013015:0000

Name: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Type: Fee Owner

Percent Owner:

Assessment Notice Address: >

City:

State:

Country:

Zip:

 

PROPERTY INFO

 

Property Information

91013015:0000

Building Value: 0

Building Exempt: 0

Land Value: 24,021,200

Land Exempt: 24,021,200

Land Classification: Improved Residential

Unit Number: 0

Acre: 68.632

Square Feet: 0

 

BUILDING PERMITS:

No building permits meeting the criteria you entered were found. Please try again.

 

ZONING INFO:

 

TMK: 9-1-013:015

 

Historical TMK Sequence:

 

Area (sq ft): 2989610.

 

Area (acres): 68.632

 

Lot Number:

 

Ohana:

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

LAND CONTROL CODES

 

 

Code Type Code Description

FLOOD ZONE FIRM ZONE D

HEIGHT LIMIT FEDERAL JURISDICTION

HISTORIC SITE REGISTER NO

LOT RESTRICTIONS NONE

SPECIAL DISTRICT NOT IN SPECIAL DISTRICT

STATE LAND USE URBAN DISTRICT

STREET SETBACK NONE

ZONING (LUO) F-1 MILITARY & FEDERAL PRESERVATION

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

FACILITIES

 

 

Facility Code Year Built No. of Floors Total Floor Area

 

No data available.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

TMK SEPARATIONS

 

 

Activity Code Census Tract Census Block

 

No data available.

 

 

Address List:

Using the link Camo provided to the source he got his information from, I discovered something. Use the image viewer and select the area in question. Now be aware this map is a little out dated compared to my gps america select 7 software. It is between essex rd. and an unnamed rd. off of vinson which is also unnamed on the tax map. The click on state land on the bottom under utitlities I think. It will show all state land in red. What do you know, the area in question is red. I printed the image out and have to scan it into a jpeg before I can upload it. You cannot hyperlink for some reason. Whos ignorant now?

[salmoned]

Well, let's see... The cache owner claimed there were no signs for weeks, even proved it with "photos" (falsehood #1). However, now he admits there are signs, but they are old, when they are not, that is, the signs may be old, but the posting of them in this location is not (falsehood #2). The cache owner implied permission was obtained by removing the disable (falsehood #3). Et cetera... Now, the cache owner claims this is not an area where munitions have been stored - My ship stored pyrotechnic munitions here while in drydock at Pearl Harbor (nuclear munitions were stored elsewhere).

 

You, Geoblast, on the other hand, proclaimed your previous post would be your last. So what we have here is a bunch of prevaricators ignoring the truth for their own ends, and putting geocaching at risk in the process. This is the part you just fail to understand, it's not me, it's not the cache owner, it's the cache! That's the problem.

 

Dblnaknak, all you need show is your permission for placement, it's that easy! BTW, those red areas are not state-owned lands, else my property is actually owned by the state, as well as 100's of other home owners'. Answer to question: Guess!

Edited January 19, 2006 by edchen

[+Team GeoBlast]

You, Geoblast, on the other hand, proclaimed your previous post would be your last. So what we have here is a bunch of prevaricators ignoring the truth for their own ends, and putting geocaching at risk in the process.

 

Dblnaknak, all you need show is your permission for placement, it's that easy!

I asked you some questions please have the courtesy to answer them.

[salmoned]

Why? Your questions appear off-topic and personal in nature.

[+Elde]

Let me start by thanking everyone for their opinions on land use in Hawaii, no tresspassing signs in general, but mostly for taking the time to share your widely varied experiences about no tresspassing signs this thread.  This topic is indeed a very dear topic to anyone who has done any amount of GeoCaching.  This is will be my last post on this subject as I think we have covered it very well.

Nobody is offering opinions on land use in Hawaii - they are questioning whether or not a specific cache is legal. Whether you and remainder of the Hawaii cachers believe it or not - it does matter to the whole geocaching community at large, because acts have repercussions. This has been explained to you on multiple occasions.

 

As I have mentioned before, I am a consultant who is dealing with land issues very close to this cache.  I don't know a lot about a lot of things but this is one area where I do have inside knowledge.  To see a GeoCacher, who resides in Minnesota or even Hawaii, doing an internet search on a tax map and offering it as absolute proof of who controlls the land, it's access, and it's future is, well, comical from where I sit here in Hawaii.

It's more proof than you have offered as to who owns the land. If you have verifiable proof - then provide it. If you don't know, then own up to fact. Prevarications reflect ill on those who claim it's all a tempest in teapot stirred up by someone else. So far not one single one of the Hawaiian cachers has been able to prove who owns the land, nor are they willing to discuss it other than dodging behind the claim of "it's no longer US goverment land".

 

Yes, the land is in fact owned by the US goverment but what the tax map doesn't show is that they have leased it or in the case of other parcells (note that this parcell was about 1/20th of land in Barbers Point), to the private sector.  This is not special or inside knowledge if you read the papers here. The shortest lease that I am aware of is 99 years.  These leases are all different and I admit that I don't know about each and every one of them, but the one constant I can guarantee across the board is that they give up all control of access to the property.

Even if the US goverment gave up control of that land - somebody now has that control. That somebody should be known to the cache hider and should have been contacted regarding permission to hide the cache. He's been asked who he contacted, and he replied 'the base police' yet the claim made is that the land is no longer part of the base, the base police have no control and no authority if the land is not part of the base.

 

I ask for the third time - who controls that land? Who did the cache hider ask for permission?

[+Elde]

Using the link Camo provided to the source he got his information from, I discovered something. Use the image viewer and select the area in question. Now be aware this map is a little out dated compared to my gps america select 7 software.

And you know that your software is the correct one, how?

 

It is between essex rd. and an unnamed rd. off of vinson which is also unnamed on the tax map. The click on state land on the bottom under utitlities I think. It will show all state land in red. What do you know, the area in question is red.   I printed the image out and have to scan it into a jpeg before I can upload it. You cannot hyperlink for some reason. Whos ignorant now?

So, which state authority actually controls the land, and who there did you contact for permission to hide the cache?