Cache on posted property

[+89SC]

Is there ever a good explanation? I've contacted the owner by email and got no reply. I posted on the cache page with these photos:

 

 

 

The cache is hidden behind the tree that has the sign on it. The cache owner deleted my post. Is it time to hit the "Needs to be archived" button? Can someone point me to the post about the cacher being arrested for criminal trespass and getting a years probabion? I haven't been able to find it with the search option.

[+biosearch]

I think that the sign is enough. If a cacher wants to take a chance, do something unlawful, that is their business. If the cache owner wants to keep it there and possibly be arrested, that, again, is their business.

 

Granted it brings discredit to hobby, once it is realized by others, but how are going to police them all. I think that the eventuality of no logs would send a better signal. If fellow cachers do not feel the same way, they are going to place caches of the same like.

 

I've noticed that this is a common thread here on this forum. I can see why.

[+El Diablo]

On the cache page click the SBA (Should be archived) button. Let them explain it to the reviewers. It may be that they have permission from the land owner, or they may even be the land owner. In either case it should be mentioned in the cache description.

 

El Diablo

Edited October 7, 2006 by El Diablo

[+edscott]

Is this a single sign or one of several along a property line? Strikes me that the sign may have been "posted" by the owner of the cache as a source of confusion.. not that I agree with the concept.. but it could be what is happening since the "landowner" has not listed a real address for contact.

[+89SC]

Is this a single sign or one of several along a property line? Strikes me that the sign may have been "posted" by the owner of the cache as a source of confusion.. not that I agree with the concept.. but it could be what is happening since the "landowner" has not listed a real address for contact.

 

Both sides of the road are posted and there is an illegal dump across the road with NO Dumping signs.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Is this a single sign or one of several along a property line? Strikes me that the sign may have been "posted" by the owner of the cache as a source of confusion.. not that I agree with the concept.. but it could be what is happening since the "landowner" has not listed a real address for contact.

There is NO legal requirement in any state that I know of for a landowner or manager to post contact information on a NO TRESPASING sign. In fact, there are good reasons for not doing so. It is the NO TRESPASSING sign that carries weight in the eye of the law, rather than presence or absence of any contact information.

[CoyoteRed]

Post the SBA with pictures.

 

However, you do need to watch out for retaliation.

 

Another thing you can do is send a note to your reviewer or the reviewer of record who published the cache if available. Send the pictures along when asked. While you've already tipped your hand in this case in others it helps to be a bit less open to the public, so to speak.

 

This a serious situation, not like a violation of the 528' rule or a cache in a hole. Crossing posted land in some states subjects you to immediate arrest. Some states, like South Carolina, require a warning before arrest, the sign serves as that warning.

 

Once you send in your report, let it go. You've done your part.

[+edscott]

 

There is NO legal requirement in any state that I know of for a landowner or manager to post contact information on a NO TRESPASING sign. In fact, there are good reasons for not doing so. It is the NO TRESPASSING sign that carries weight in the eye of the law, rather than presence or absence of any contact information.

 

I bring up the address and signature aspect because in this area people often post bits of public ground to establish a "private" hunting spot for the season. The park rangers/land managers don't stray far from the road or coffee pot so the signs sometimes stay out all winter or maybe longer. No I don't suppose the sign must be signed by the owner/renter; in fact the land needs no signs at all to be private, but signs put up by someone else may mean nothing.

 

Often signs are placed beyond the actual boundary. Perhaps this cache being behind the tree on which the sign is placed is still outside the property being posted. Of course these questions should have been answered by the cache owner. Archiving it may force him to respond.

[Clan Riffster]

I recently archived two of my hides because of misplaced signs. There is a strip of land along the West shore of Lake Harney, (Geneva Fl), that is sovereign land of the state. Public access on foot is perfectly legal. This strip is between the current shoreline, (water level), and what the courts refer to as the 100 year high water mark, which is several hundred feet into the woodline. The land owners whose property abuts this area didn't like the court's decision, so they posted "No Trespassing" signs at the woodline. Both of my caches were behind the signs, but still on public land.

 

I recognized the potential for cachers to be arrested hunting these caches, and elected to archive them, even though the arrestee could not be convicted for trespassing. Better safe than sorry, and I can always find another hiding spot.

 

All this rambling simply points out that, just cuz there's a sign there, doesn't mean an SBA is warranted. Do some research first, then post an SBA. Effort = Reward.

[+Prime Suspect]

It should be noted that a No Trespassing sign doesn't even have to be an actual sign. In Texas, and many other states, a vertical stripe of purple paint on a tree or pole carries the same legal weight as a No Trespassing sign.

[+Kealia]

If the cache owner wants to keep it there and possibly be arrested, that, again, is their business.

 

Granted it brings discredit to hobby, once it is realized by others, but how are going to police them all. I think that the eventuality of no logs would send a better signal. If fellow cachers do not feel the same way, they are going to place caches of the same like.

 

 

It's actually not only THIER business - it violates the guidelines of this listing site, it potentially endangers searchers, and - as you noted - it discredits our RASH. For those who work dillegently to stay within the guidelines, and work with parks, rangers, land managers, etc. - this is a huge step backward and what causes misconceptions of what caching is and probems down the road.

 

Hit the SBA button, with pics. In the future, if you don't want to go public with it - email your local reviewer.

 

We should all be "cache police" in instances like this.

[+Trucker Lee]

 

It's actually not only THIER business - it violates the guidelines of this listing site, it potentially endangers searchers, and - as you noted - it discredits our RASH. For those who work dillegently to stay within the guidelines, and work with parks, rangers, land managers, etc. - this is a huge step backward and what causes misconceptions of what caching is and probems down the road.

 

Hit the SBA button, with pics. In the future, if you don't want to go public with it - email your local reviewer.

 

We should all be "cache police" in instances like this.

 

Amen! The disrespect of a few can cause many to be punished by ruining the reputation of cachers. If the property owner doesn't want folks traipsing around, that is their right. This attitude could well have been caused by someone getting injured, and wanting the property owner to be responsible for something they knew nothing about, or just because he/she got tired of having to clean up after strangers. Honor property owners wishes, and understand that you are responsible for your own safety when caching.

 

Years ago, a property owner would not allow ANYONE to fish his pond because of trespassers damaging and littering his property. After several weeks of talking, only myself and a close friend were allowed in, because of my convincing the gentleman that we would help right the problem (as in collect trash before fishing each time in), would keep the gate locked behind us, and would report anyone else we caught. We were closely watched for the first months, until we had earned his trust. Cachers, as well as others who desire to use someone's property, must protect this right through their actions. Disrespecting posted signs is not a good first step!! By the way, the fishing was worth the effort of picking up trash 30 minutes each time we went.

Edited October 9, 2006 by Trucker Lee

[+sbell111]

It should be noted that a No Trespassing sign doesn't even have to be an actual sign. In Texas, and many other states, a vertical stripe of purple paint on a tree or pole carries the same legal weight as a No Trespassing sign.

Interesting. I've never heard this before. I wonder if this practice is common in other states. I may have trespassed and never realized it.

[+GIDEON-X]

All Hands should take into consideration that they stand the possiblity of "Begin Violated" if in fact they trespass.............

[+sbell111]

All Hands should take into consideration that they stand the possiblity of "Begin Violated" if in fact they trespass.............

???

[+Prime Suspect]

It should be noted that a No Trespassing sign doesn't even have to be an actual sign. In Texas, and many other states, a vertical stripe of purple paint on a tree or pole carries the same legal weight as a No Trespassing sign.

Interesting. I've never heard this before. I wonder if this practice is common in other states. I may have trespassed and never realized it.

It Texas, I know that it's part of the state's penal code. I've seen the paint used in other states as well (Arkansas and Oklahoma, for example).

[+sbell111]

It should be noted that a No Trespassing sign doesn't even have to be an actual sign. In Texas, and many other states, a vertical stripe of purple paint on a tree or pole carries the same legal weight as a No Trespassing sign.

Interesting. I've never heard this before. I wonder if this practice is common in other states. I may have trespassed and never realized it.

It Texas, I know that it's part of the state's penal code. I've seen the paint used in other states as well (Arkansas and Oklahoma, for example).

Missouri and Kansas apparently have similar laws. According to this editorial at least ten other states use colors from orange to lime green.

 

Go figure.

[+ADKcachers]

I encountered a posted sign on a recent cache outing. I turned around and contacted the cache owner (GCXMJN). They said that they had permission for cachers to go there.

 

It would be nice to see that reflected in the description, but at least she was nice enough to reply to my email.

[+Harry Dolphin]

And, don't forget the lands purchased by the Feds, state, or local government that were posted, but the signs have never been taken down. I can think of a few local areas like that. Usually, the cache owners note that on the page. There is also a local monastery, with a large land holding. The monastery has granted a right-of-way for a major local trail. But, however, the land is still posted against trespassing. Actually, the trailheads are posted, right next to the blazes. Go figure.

So, not all posted signs are still valid. But, if I had a cache in one of these locations, I would definitely note that the land is now public property.

[+The Blue Quasar]

Referring to the paint as an indication of "No Trespassing"

 

A "RED CIRCLE" in Ontario means "No Trespassing". This can be painted on trees, posts, or anything that could represent a border of property.

 

Sometimes, older versions were a hollow red circle with a red line through it (Picture a 'no smoking sign' without the cigarette)

 

Trust me... no one cares if you don't know that it means "No Trespassing", you get charged regardless.

 

The easy rule is... "When in doubt... stay OUT!"

 

And yes... send an email to your local reviewer, stating that you have pictures. You might want to take new photos infront of the tree showing your GPS screen with the coordinates displayed, if needed.

 

Don't let others pee in the pool that you swim in.

 

The Blue Quasar

[+kayak-cowboy]

Just looking at the pictures it is obvious that there has been a "No Trespassing" sign posted on this tree for a while. The tell tale sign of that is the plywood backing behind the sign. The sign looks relatively new.

So I would not look for this cache, and I would use the SBA button. This will alert the reviewer as well as the owner. I don't think(not positive) that the cache owner can delete a SBA log. So go ahead and post the pictures as well.

I have used the SBA log when I came across a cache that was on private property. Signs all the way around the area, with no other access.

[Lt32]

It should be noted that a No Trespassing sign doesn't even have to be an actual sign. In Texas, and many other states, a vertical stripe of purple paint on a tree or pole carries the same legal weight as a No Trespassing sign.

Interesting. I've never heard this before. I wonder if this practice is common in other states. I may have trespassed and never realized it.

It Texas, I know that it's part of the state's penal code. I've seen the paint used in other states as well (Arkansas and Oklahoma, for example).

 

If I remember correctly in Florida, if the property is fenced and,or under cultivation it is considered posted even if no sign exists.

[+edscott]

It should be noted that a No Trespassing sign doesn't even have to be an actual sign. In Texas, and many other states, a vertical stripe of purple paint on a tree or pole carries the same legal weight as a No Trespassing sign.

 

Yes, but now with Bush's NCLB policy in place, the literacy rate in Texas should skyrocket making this type of marking unnecessary.

[Clan Riffster]

Wow, it took less than a whole page for the Bushbashing drones to arrive. Usually threads get to at least page 3 before the Rosie O'Donnell fan club puts their collective two cents in.

[CoyoteRed]

...Bush... ...Rosie O'Donnell...

 

Neither are on my favorite persons list.

[+4 Walls]

How hard is it to understand that if you are on private property without permission that most of the time you are trespassing?

 

Yes, I know there are exceptions, parking lots, possibly walking up a sidewalk to ring a door bell etc. So don't worry about throwing all those things out as examples of times being able to enter private property, we all understand that.

 

In many states landowners/lessees/managers do not need to post signs, it is a matter of state law. Check your local laws. In these states you are generally ok if you are in a road right-of-way. Once you leave the right-of-way you are trespassing. Right-of-ways for utilities are not generally fairgame for entry. They are intended for the utilities to lay the utilities and have access to them.

 

Yes there may be exceptions to these in different states. If you know of specific laws or exceptions to a state let us know.

 

I also don't understand why someone would see a sign that says no trespassing and assume it was not legitimate and trespass. That defense sure won't hold up in court. Verify and get permission before you trespass!

 

Dan

[+Prime Suspect]

It should be noted that a No Trespassing sign doesn't even have to be an actual sign. In Texas, and many other states, a vertical stripe of purple paint on a tree or pole carries the same legal weight as a No Trespassing sign.

 

Yes, but now with Bush's NCLB policy in place, the literacy rate in Texas should skyrocket making this type of marking unnecessary.

He already worked his "special magic" back when he was the guv. Test scores bad? Don't improve the schools. Instead, rewrite the test, and encourage certain students not to take the test.

 

(Humor aside, the use of the paint is an economic and pragmatic one, and has nothing to do with literacy. Signs are expensive, and have a short lifespan. Paint is relatively cheap, and can't easily be removed.)

[+Renegade Knight]

It should be noted that a No Trespassing sign doesn't even have to be an actual sign. In Texas, and many other states, a vertical stripe of purple paint on a tree or pole carries the same legal weight as a No Trespassing sign.

Interesting. I've never heard this before. I wonder if this practice is common in other states. I may have trespassed and never realized it.

It Texas, I know that it's part of the state's penal code. I've seen the paint used in other states as well (Arkansas and Oklahoma, for example).

Missouri and Kansas apparently have similar laws. According to this editorial at least ten other states use colors from orange to lime green.

 

Go figure.

 

Good information. This is not something that I knew. In Idaho it must be hanging old tires off of fence posts instead of paint.

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

 

Yes there may be exceptions to these in different states. If you know of specific laws or exceptions to a state let us know.

 

 

Dan

 

I've mentioned this before in some other thread, but in Indiana land must be posted or no trespass. Dad once had a hunter sneak in and build a deer stand in one of his trees, guy took off before Dad got there, but when he called to report it the first thing they wanted to know was if he had the farm posted no tresspassing, without that there was nothing they could do, even the "treehouse" the guy built didn't matter, if the property isn't posted no law was broken.

 

On a side note, around here as a rule the farmers really don't care if people cross there land as long as they don't bother anything, leave gates as you found them (open or closed) don't trample the crops or anything.

It's the folks who move out here from the city and buy a few acres who think they own Fort Knox and it must be defended at all cost.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Ah. There is the theory that you are supposed to know where you are. You are supposed to know the rules and laws. I maintain a trail in a state park. ATVs are prohibited. As are bicycles, except on certain trails. ATVs cause a lot of damage. "Excuse me. You are in a state park, and ATVs are prohibited here." "I didn't know I was in a state park." Ignorance is no excuse. (This is ignoring the fact that there are very few places that ATVs are prmitted in New Jersey, without explicit permission from the land owner.) All land belongs to someone, or some public entity. State parks are posted against the use of ATVs. Know where you are, and what you are permitted to do there.

The trail bicycles do not cause as much damage. Saw a young kid on a bicycle, on top of the mountain, an a trail which requires a lot of climbing, and ridge walking. "This is a terrible trail for biking." Duh, you are not supposed to be biking here. It is posted against bikes.

[+Right Wing Wacko]

It should be noted that a No Trespassing sign doesn't even have to be an actual sign. In Texas, and many other states, a vertical stripe of purple paint on a tree or pole carries the same legal weight as a No Trespassing sign.

Interesting. I've never heard this before. I wonder if this practice is common in other states. I may have trespassed and never realized it.

 

In Montana:

 

Posting Requirements -- Notice denying entry to private land must consist of written notice on a post, structure or natural object or by painting a post, structure or natural object with at least 50 square inches of fluorescent orange paint. In the case of a metal fencepost, the entire post must be painted. This notice must be placed at each outer gate and all normal points of access to the property, as well as on both sides of a stream where it crosses an outer property boundary line. Hunters are reminded that they must have landowner permission before hunting big game animals on private property, regardless of whether the land is posted or not.

 

However, my favorite sign reads:

 

NO TRESPASSING

SURVIVORS MAY BE PROSECUTED

[+Harry Dolphin]

Formerly privately owned land. Now a WMA, and open to the public. The state never took down the No Trespassing signs, but did put up WMA signs. A very interesting area to hike in (especially with the fall foliage). Several caches in the area. I would have been leery of hiking here, if it weren't for the WMA signs, and the notice in some of the cache pages. And it is a hunting area, so, in the fall and winter, I only go there on Sundays.

[+disenchanted]

It should be noted that a No Trespassing sign doesn't even have to be an actual sign. In Texas, and many other states, a vertical stripe of purple paint on a tree or pole carries the same legal weight as a No Trespassing sign.

Interesting. I've never heard this before. I wonder if this practice is common in other states. I may have trespassed and never realized it.

 

In Montana:

 

Posting Requirements -- Notice denying entry to private land must consist of written notice on a post, structure or natural object or by painting a post, structure or natural object with at least 50 square inches of fluorescent orange paint. In the case of a metal fencepost, the entire post must be painted. This notice must be placed at each outer gate and all normal points of access to the property, as well as on both sides of a stream where it crosses an outer property boundary line. Hunters are reminded that they must have landowner permission before hunting big game animals on private property, regardless of whether the land is posted or not.

 

However, my favorite sign reads:

 

NO TRESPASSING

SURVIVORS MAY BE PROSECUTED

 

Interesting. In OK, dayglow orange fenceposts only serve to mark where an underground gas pipeline crosses a fencerow or other property line. They do that so that arial surveys of the pipeline can easily identify where the pipeline is.

[+DangerousDale]

Is there ever a good explanation? I've contacted the owner by email and got no reply. I posted on the cache page with these photos:

 

The cache is hidden behind the tree that has the sign on it. The cache owner deleted my post. Is it time to hit the "Needs to be archived" button? Can someone point me to the post about the cacher being arrested for criminal trespass and getting a years probabion? I haven't been able to find it with the search option.

 

I have a similar problem with a fellow cacher who has placed a cache at his place of work. But it is business that deals with government contract work and I know for a fact they take their privacy seriously. He is trying to make light of the situation and asks when was the last time someone was arrested for trespassing while geocaching? Has there been such a case and could you let me know as well, since I didn't see an answer to this previous post about this?

 

Are we not self governing and should we report these instances to the reviewers? Some say let it go and don't worry about it or don't go to those caches if you don't want to but let others if they do want to? Is this appropriate behavior for us to look the other way or ignore the problem?

[+jon & miki]

I think there have been more than one case, but here's one that was mentioned in the forums a while back.

[+Kryten]

Here in Scotland all of our land is owned by somebody and the concept of public land doesn't really exist. All of the wild country is part of large sporting estates used for shooting and fishing. Most of the land has never been on the open market but is wither traded privately or is owned by trusts and other shelters from inheritance tax. The government got fed up with this and passed "right to roam" legislation. We can now go anywhere (private gardens, farmyards etc excluded) and the landowners can do nothing about it. We can be excluded if forestry or shooting are taking place but only temporarily.

[+Okiebryan]

So rather than the Scottish government buying up some land and converting it to public use, they just took away a big chunk of private property rights-with the stroke of a pen-so that now no landowner has any control over who is doing whatever on their land???

 

I'm speechless. I am without speech.

[Clan Riffster]

Is this appropriate behavior for us to look the other way or ignore the problem?

Is there a problem? The cache is at his workplace. The presumption would be, he had permission to hide it there. The separate issue is, do you, (me/everybody else), have permission to hunt it? Again, that's presumed by the hider, but at that point, the risk is yours. If you don't feel comfortable hunting for a cache, don't hunt for it. I probably wouldn't.

No problem!

[+Kryten]

So rather than the Scottish government buying up some land and converting it to public use, they just took away a big chunk of private property rights-with the stroke of a pen-so that now no landowner has any control over who is doing whatever on their land???

 

I'm speechless. I am without speech.

 

It sound extreme but we live on a small island with a population density over ten times that of the USA. People who live in the towns had no access to open country. All the mountains lochs and purple heather that you see in the tourist brochures are in private ownership by the same aristocratic families who have owned them for generations, and ordinary people had no right to go there, 7% of the population own 84% percent of the land. Attempts to change this failed because the land never came onto the open market so the government couldn't buy it. Attempts at voluntary access codes also failed until eventually 84% of the voters told 7% of the voters where to go.

[+chuckwagon101]

Most land owners have a way of muggling caches when they see a great amount of activity around their property. And they sometimes bear arms.

 

We were asked to leave an area that was private property by a red-neck, soda-biscuit eating rancher toting a Winchester. Uhhh, we didn't know this area was posted. We left......post-haste!

 

Chuckwagon

[+nekom]

Personally I won't go anywhere near posted property. Somebody owns it. They don't want me there. That's all I need. UNLESS the cache specifically states that permission was obtained.

 

But then, in my particular area, just about all land owners are armed, so maybe that's why.

[+Mule Ears]

Bogus "No Trespassing" signs do exist. Some are outdated. Some are placed deliberately as a ruse by hunters or miners. And sometimes there's ambiguity about the area covered by the sign. Many dirt roads in this area traverse private property--you're only trespassing if you leave the road. In some cases this is clearly stated by a custom-made sign, in others, there's just a generic hardware-store sign that leaves room for doubt.

 

What all these cases have in common is that the description for a cache placed in the vicinity of a "No Trespassing" sign should tell cache seekers why the sign doesn't apply to them. If the sign does apply, the cache shouldn't be there. SBA.

Edited October 31, 2006 by Mule Ears

[+Kit Fox]

I would not hesitate to log an SBA on that cache. Encouraging cachers to purposely break the law, for a geocache is both irresponsible, and foolhardy.

 

Most land owners have a way of muggling caches when they see a great amount of activity around their property. And they sometimes bear arms.

 

We were asked to leave an area that was private property by a red-neck, soda-biscuit eating rancher toting a Winchester. Uhhh, we didn't know this area was posted. We left......post-haste!

 

Chuckwagon

 

Thats a classy way to stereotype white people

[+Renegade Knight]

So rather than the Scottish government buying up some land and converting it to public use, they just took away a big chunk of private property rights-with the stroke of a pen-so that now no landowner has any control over who is doing whatever on their land???

 

I'm speechless. I am without speech.

 

Then take some time and think about the situation. If land owners here in the USA wanted to get anal about all their rights and post everthing your world would consist of your house. Your work, the road inbetween and you would have no right to be anwhere outside of that box unless you were doing business with the land owner or invited. If you want to wander cross country...as in a hike, that's not an option except on public lands, and we in the USA are lucky to have them. More of them in the West than the East. If there were none it would be very expensive to buy them. Even if you did people live and walk where they already are and getting to the public spot could be difficult, especially with rising transportation costs.

 

Right to roam is how it started. Then somebody said "I am king and I own all lands" and had the force to back it up. Then that king gave the lands out to his favorites and a lot of people got shafted in the process. Right to roam became, no rights at all, unless you were a noble, or rich, or lucky. Most people are none of those. The government of Scotland did the right thing. In the end all lands in Scotland are like all lands in the USA. They are private only because the government allows it. There are limits.

[+Sioneva]

 

... The government of Scotland did the right thing. In the end all lands in Scotland are like all lands in the USA. They are private only because the government allows it. ...

 

I was with you up to that point... God help us if we allow the government that much power over our lives. Given the tendency of governments to take land away from people whenever they want (history of American Indians, modern-day laws of eminent domain), if unchecked, it could swing to the other extreme.

[+Renegade Knight]

 

... The government of Scotland did the right thing. In the end all lands in Scotland are like all lands in the USA. They are private only because the government allows it. ...

 

I was with you up to that point... God help us if we allow the government that much power over our lives. Given the tendency of governments to take land away from people whenever they want (history of American Indians, modern-day laws of eminent domain), if unchecked, it could swing to the other extreme.

 

Indians didn't own land. The concept was alien to them. They controlled and lived in areas. Same as the tribes in Europe. All present private property was taken from the people who lived on it by someone else with the power and with the concept of ownership of the land. The US Government isn't any different in that regard. American Indians would have gotten around to it themselves given time.

 

The point being that all people live here and it's our job to force the government to do the right thing. Sometimes that does mean stomping all over the rights of landowners lest they mark the entire world as "No tresspassing" and charge us a toll to leave our front door just because they have the power.

 

Extremes run both diretions.

 

When the government in this country issued patents they reserved certain rights that didn't transfer. Most governments do that, and for very good reason.

[+Bad_CRC]

we have the opposite problem here.

 

we have parks in my town that have been in existence since the formation of the city that are now being liquidated quickly by the current administration who sees little need for the natural areas that had been preserved for so many years.

 

A wildlife refuge across the street from my house that had been around since the formation of town has been rezoned, sold by the city, and is now flattened, paved, and packed with condos tighter than you'd think possible. Several other parks have been eliminated.

 

One town near here that has the most amazing hiking trails I've seen, I used to spend hours on the hills there in college, I went caching there yesterday, and the whole area is marked off for private development. The most beautiful views in the state, will soon be off limits for anyone to experience or enjoy except for that one owner... forever. And the view of the area will also be gone forever as they are cleared and covered with houses.

 

development is good, but eliminating public land to do so, and eliminating the most prime public natural areas in favor of private off-limits housing is a regrettable trend for everyone.

[+Renegade Knight]

we have the opposite problem here.

...

development is good, but eliminating public land to do so, and eliminating the most prime public natural areas in favor of private off-limits housing is a regrettable trend for everyone.

 

That's a major problem.

 

If any federal funds were involved there may be ways to stop this. If federal funds were used to build roads 4(f) laws are designed to prevent this.