Now This Should Generate Some Interesting Debate/Conversation

[bigscoop]

Corruption? Theft? Fair & Square? You decide.

So here's the background to this situation, the city at one time having dedicated several city parks that were supported by tax dollars. You all know how this basically works but the short of it that the city dedicated certain partials of municipal lands to the development of public parks, these parks then supported by tax revenues and other sources of city incomes. In short-short, these parks belong to the city but are funded by the people. At least that's the general “perception/format.”

This morning I traveled to one of these a local city parks to do a bit of detecting, this park generally being fairly clean, quiet, and only lightly used, and one might also say that it is in an upscale portion of town when compared to most of our city parks. And so here we go....

I had just recovered my first ring, a small sterling ring with a broken shank, not a bad start. About five minutes later I'm approached by and older gentleman in a suit, nice guy, very polite and genial, and after some basic chitchat he informed me that the park was no longer owned by the city and that it now required written permission to detect, which as he pointed out, wasn't very likely. Why? Because he was the guy who decided that and he metal detected too. But this isn't the core of the story, hardly.

As it turns out the city, due to lack of funding, or so they say, just up and “gave” this large partial of ground to....and here it comes.....”the church”....to which the gentleman in front of me was the pastor. That's right, several acres of good city ground simply given to the church, no effort at all to try to sell it in order to recover funds that could be used somewhere else, say to up grade another existing city park somewhere, which, ironically, they are currently doing at at-least two different locations that I know of.

Now here's a bit more on this ground, about seven acres, the neighborhood is well manicured, the property is bordered by some very nice church grounds on one side and the location is convenient. I'm sure it could have brought a fair price and some noticeable additional revenues for the city. But they just up and, “give it away?” Yep, it's all true.

So what do you think? Should this be allowed? A city “grounds” that was accessible to the public “quietly” given away to a non-profit that now restricts public access. Just seems like something is broken and twisted here?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[bigscoop]

What city and what park within that city is the subject of this thread?
Did I miss that?
Don......

Sunny Crest, Marion Indiana, give me a minute and I'll post the city parks link. Here it is:

http://www.marionindiana.us/?q=filebrowser/download/606

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[bigscoop]

Very interesting thread!

We have sort of an opposite situation in my city.

There is a large park in front of our city's namesake church, Holy Cross/Santa Cruz.

To my understanding, the church has leased this park to the city for $1 a year with the understanding the city will maintain it.

This is very interesting, and for several reasons. Right off the top, even if this is just an adoption, it still potentially places a public property into privately controlled hands and their interest rather then the interest of the public to which the parks are designed and intended. Also a question, and concerning churches in the case of adoption, is this not then, allowing/promoting church and state? Starting to smell a whole lot a land/control grab to me....

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.....will ensure that adequate recreation opportunities are available to all residents, ....

Good sleuthing work bigscoop. And I consider "Md'ing" to be "adequate". Don't you ?

.... i can't make the call until Monday to know for sure ...

Huh ? What's there to "call" about? What's wrong with simply printing this out as your authority that the public is not dis-allowed from using the park ?? If you go down and start calling about who-can-decide what actions, etc..., then someone is possibly to ask "what action?" or "which activity?" etc.. And then you merely start swatting hornets nests and starting semantics debates. Why torture yourself ?

You've already answered your own question. Why make matters more difficult ? Just go when said-lookie-lou isn't present. Certainly if he's staff at the church who 'adopted' it, then he's busy during services (in the pulpit). Or just go at night, etc... You are simply not going to please every last person on earth in-this-hobby.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....There is a large park in front of our city's namesake church, Holy Cross/Santa Cruz....

In the 1970s, and even into the early 1980s, it was possible to find silver there. Even a phoenix button came from there. But the place is now blighted with homeless person trash Such is the case for a lot of our older-parts of towns in our area: They become the "blighted" districts, eh ? But back east, there's 150+ yr. old parks that STILL remain in the "upscale" affluent sides of town. We're on the wrong coast Ron.

Oh well, we still have beach storm hunting, ghost towns, old-town demolition scrapes, etc....

 

[bigscoop]

Good sleuthing work bigscoop. And I consider "Md'ing" to be "adequate". Don't you ?



Huh ? What's there to "call" about? What's wrong with simply printing this out as your authority that the public is not dis-allowed from using the park ?? If you go down and start calling about who-can-decide what actions, etc..., then someone is possibly to ask "what action?" or "which activity?" etc.. And then you merely start swatting hornets nests and starting semantics debates. Why torture yourself ?

You've already answered your own question. Why make matters more difficult ? Just go when said-lookie-lou isn't present. Certainly if he's staff at the church who 'adopted' it, then he's busy during services (in the pulpit). Or just go at night, etc... You are simply not going to please every last person on earth in-this-hobby.

Slow down there Tom, first we have to determine if this an adoption or a giveaway? And either way, who has legal jurisdiction over policy? But trust me, I am going to find out.

 

[SeabeeRon]

This is very interesting, and for several reasons. Right off the top, even if this is just an adoption, it still potentially places a public property into privately controlled hands and their interest rather then the interest of the public to which the parks are designed and intended. Also a question, and concerning churches in the case of adoption, is this not then, allowing/promoting church and state? Starting to smell a whole lot a land/control grab to me....

In the situation I posted the land is part of the original Mission Santa Cruz and owned by the Diocese of Monterey.

In your situation the first thing I thought of was the whole separation of Church and State.

 

[bigscoop]

In the situation I posted the land is part of the original Mission Santa Cruz and owned by the Diocese of Monterey.

In your situation the first thing I thought of was the whole separation of Church and State.

Yep, it's interesting that in an era where these type of church/state cases are recently being upheld in the courts that any city government would still pursue these type of dealings, if such is indeed the case, which I fully suspect now that it is.

As to "the Diocese"....I recently went asking for permission (through the parish) regarding an old and unused field owned by the church, to which I was told that nobody would bother me, and yet in the same breath they told me that they couldn't actually give me permission since this was up to the Diocese. Was never really sure just how much I could trust here?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

...who has legal jurisdiction over policy? ....

well, sure. BUT THE SAME THING could be asked of ANY park, ANYWHERE. Example: someone (gardener, cop, little-league mom, etc...) comes up and says "you can't do that". And sure, you can debate them and "seek clarification" and split hairs on "who has the authority" all you want. And then sure-as-heck, someone decides that md'ing "shouldn't be allowed" , or that the preacher (or gardener, or janitor or whomever) *did* have that authority. Then what ? You'll be proud of yourself for making such a big stink ? I don't get it. So what if he "has the authority" to call policy decisions ? SO TOO does ANY "appointed official" in any mundane routine park "can decide" that our hobby bothers earthworms, or that you need a parade permit to fly a kite, etc...

Just do it when said lookie-lou isn't around. In the same way that you'll always find some fluke incident in parks anywhere. I do not construe fluke incidents to constitute gospel law that "must be fought".

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Yep, it's interesting that in an era where these type of church/state cases are recently being upheld in the courts ....

Sure, you could start down that "constitutional path" if you wanted. But what will probably happen, at some point, is that someone's going to ask "what is the exact usage issue in question?" And the minute you say "metal detecting", then someone's gonna envision geeks with shovels and side with the preacher. And then all your constitutional legal real estate issues will become a moot point. Me thinks you're swatting hornet's nests.

 

[bigscoop]

well, sure. BUT THE SAME THING could be asked of ANY park, ANYWHERE. Example: someone (gardener, cop, little-league mom, etc...) comes up and says "you can't do that". And sure, you can debate them and "seek clarification" and split hairs on "who has the authority" all you want. And then sure-as-heck, someone decides that md'ing "shouldn't be allowed" , or that the preacher (or gardener, or janitor or whomever) *did* have that authority. Then what ? You'll be proud of yourself for making such a big stink ? I don't get it. So what if he "has the authority" to call policy decisions ? SO TOO does ANY "appointed official" in any mundane routine park "can decide" that our hobby bothers earthworms, or that you need a parade permit to fly a kite, etc...

Just do it when said lookie-lou isn't around. In the same way that you'll always find some fluke incident in parks anywhere. I do not construe fluke incidents to constitute gospel law that "must be fought".

See Tom, I often see you as the most irresponsible detectorist I have known, actually advocating in public forum that things like laws and rules permissions, etc., be avoided and that folks should simply ignore such rights and concerns and take the risk. Yet, in another thread when this same philosophy was applied to your own back yard you quickly defended your right of ownership and your right to pass policy and to enforce your governing of that property. Seems to me that you just want to do whatever you want to do whenever you want to do it regardless who it may hurt or who has to pay the price for those irresponsible actions on down the road. You just display total disregard for laws, rules, and rights, even advocate that others do the same. I don't get it.....

You advised me, even after being aware that issue has been already raised, "Just do it when said lookie-lou isn't around."

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... in another thread when this same philosophy was applied to your own back yard you quickly defended your right of ownership and your right to pass policy and to enforce your governing of that property. ...

Huh ? what thread are you talking about ?

... total disregard for laws, rules, ....

bigscoop, if this IS the "laws and rules", then no, I don't advocate to "disregard" them. But isn't that the issue here in the first place ? Ie.: IS THIS "laws and rules" ? What I am saying is: Since when, the moment someone comes up and says "you can't do that", does THAT make it , therefore: "laws and rules" ? If it's true that it truly WAS a "law and rule", then by all means : obey.

Look it up for yourself if you're worried about a single lookie-lou gripe. If A) the spot allows public access recreation and B) md'ing has no specific prohibition/rule, then ... what's there to clarify ?

If you meant: "does some particular person have authority to come up and lay down arbitrary whimsical rules?", then you're going to be in for a rude awakening at every single park you come to (not just odd arrangements like your present situation). You will find out that, yes, any janitor, cop, little league mom, gardener, etc.... can indeed come up and say they don't like what you're doing. Then what ? Turn over heaven and earth to over-turn their say-so and convert them to love you ? Go ahead.

 

[bigscoop]

Huh ? what thread are you talking about ?



bigscoop, if this IS the "laws and rules", then no, I don't advocate to "disregard" them. But isn't that the issue here in the first place ? Ie.: IS THIS "laws and rules" ? What I am saying is: Since when, the moment someone comes up and says "you can't do that", does THAT make it , therefore: "laws and rules" ? If it's true that it truly WAS a "law and rule", then by all means : obey.

Look it up for yourself if you're worried about a single lookie-lou gripe. If A) the spot allows public access recreation and B) md'ing has no specific prohibition/rule, then ... what's there to clarify ?

If you meant: "does some particular person have authority to come up and lay down arbitrary whimsical rules?", then you're going to be in for a rude awakening at every single park you come to (not just odd arrangements like your present situation). You will find out that, yes, any janitor, cop, little league mom, gardener, etc.... can indeed come up and say they don't like what you're doing. Then what ? Turn over heaven and earth to over-turn their say-so and convert them to love you ? Go ahead.

Tom, stick to the facts and quit trying to manufacture ways around the required due-diligence in this matter.
You advised me, even after being aware that issue has been already raised, "Just do it when said lookie-lou isn't around." This is the same as saying, "screw them and the potential risk, do whatever you desire." And you're advocating this without even knowing what the situation or existing policies might even actually be. In fact, you're even advocating that I ignore the situation and just go about doing whatever I like when those other concerned parties aren't present, even though they could very well be correct. So Tom, it's pretty obvious that you have little respect for the rights of others, or for that matter, other hunters who may find themselves in trouble simply by following your advice. "Not me!" I'll do the required followup so I'll have that knowledge to guide me and I'll continue to suggest that others do the same. It's worked pretty well for me over the years, and others, so far.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

ok bigscoop, I understand what you're saying. So let's apply it to a very real situation that happened to me once:

I was md'ing on the beach. A lady came up to me and took issue with what I was doing. She was saying something like how it was affecting or bothering her dog . I think she thought the detector was somehow emitting frequencies that only dogs heard or something ? Ok, you tell me: Is it my obligation to get her to believe otherwise ? To "overturn" her ? To go to city hall and seek clarification as to whether I'm allowed on the beach, because, heaven forbid she might not like it ? What if (to make the story more analogous) she said she's a rotary club member who picks up litter up off the beach ?

example #2: There is a self-appointed local group here, something akin to the PETA or SPCA or some such nature-lovers group. They make it their mission to patrol the seashores here (we're in a highly touristy area) to make sure no one is bothering the mating sea lions, or bothering the butterflies, or stepping on fragile ocean dunes plant life, etc... A very noble cause. Well, one day, a buddy and I were md'ing on a pocket cove beach. A harbor patrol came up and tried to boot us. Turns out, one of these nature people had gone and fetched him, because she thought we were too close to a sea lion (which was WAY far away basking/sunning on a rock outcropping in the distance). And no, we weren't "bothering sea lions". But the harbor patrol guy , who was an admitted "authority" was beholden to the nature person. So ... we just gave lip service. And ... we come back a few days later when "said lookie-lou" isn't there to gripe. Ok, does that "coming back later" constitute lawlessness and "screw them" etc.... ? Is it my obligation to hire lawyers, measure distances to sea lions, battle semantics on whether we're harming sand craps, and so forth ? I don't think so.

Thus the admonition to sometimes "give lip service" and avoid singular lookie-lou in the future, does not, in my view, equate to advocating lawlessness.

 

[RustyGold]

I can see Tom's point but I think there's a bigger issue here. This is not just about MDing in the park.
How can the city give away public property that was bought and paid for by taxes?
As soon as I started to read the post I thought "land grab".
There should be a public hearing on what to do with this property. Apparently that was not done so it has certain implications of good ol'boy gifting.
The people of the city should have every say on what goes on, on public lands.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

also bigscoop, look again at post #31. In that, I suggested that, since public access/recreation IS NOT AT ISSUE, that you can look up said-rules for yourself. Ie.: park, rules are no secret from the public, right ? [Eg. : dogs on leash, no fireworks] And I suggested that if there's no rule that said "no md'ing", then... ok then ?

WHAT CAN BE MORE LAW-ABIDING THAN THAT ?

NOT saying that someone in-authority can't waltz up to you and I and decide that you're "bothering earthworms", etc... Sure, I agree, that authority-has the power to shut down activities they deem dangerous, etc.... If any such isolated person , who is perhaps having a bad hair day, does such a thing to an md'r, you're saying it constitutes law that must be fought now. Right ?

Ok then, with this premise in mind, what do we do with this real-life scenario: I know a guy, who ran into a state-of-CA archie while hunting a state-of-CA beach. The archie and him argued over whether it was allowed or not. The archie marched off saying he was going to go fetch a ranger to see-about-this. My friend knew this was ridiculous, because it's well-known that state-of-CA beaches (which are 90% of our coastline here) have been md'd since the dawn of time! So my friend ignored the threat and continued to detect.

But after a few minutes, he began to get the willies. He decided "it's time to call it a day". He hiked back out to his car, loaded his gear, and left. No one ever came up to him, etc.... He spread the news to others of us CA beach hunters on a certain CA forum. Hmmmm, ok, you tell me: Does this isolated incident constitute "something we must now fight?" Do we all go to Sacramento "seeking clarification" ? Do we figure it means the beaches are all-off-limits now ?

As it turns out, that archie had just been there on a fluke (to attend a speaking engagement at a beach-side museum , and ... just a fluke that my friend was md'ing right on the beach besides there that day). Thus, odds are, that archie will go back to his ivory tower inland castle , and promptly forget about it. That was 15+ yrs. ago, and ... to this day .... you can hunt state-of-CA beaches till you're blue in the face. Are we all lawless miscreants for not rushing to prove-this-guy-wrong ?

 

[Nitric]

I haven't read the whole thread yet. But just an off the wall guess? Someone in charge is or knows someone at that church. No doubt in my mind. Ya, I bet the city was just sitting around and said."Hey! We need to get rid of that park, Oh....I know!!! We will see if the Church next to it wants it!!!".... Ya!! Right!!!! Someone, a problem, etc....Pushed the issue of unloading the land, dropped a few bucks, or whatever on someone.

Is it wrong? I would think. But...There are some things to consider. Was the park a problem for whatever reason to the city? What or how much local support does the church give to it's community. Big church? or just little tiny.....

This is more common than I think most people imagine. With contracts for work, supplies bought and whatever else.

I have a relative in sales at a huge store chain we have around the country. If you or I walk in or call, we pay $10 for example(for such and such item) If your local or federal gov? Well, they pay many times more for the same item, in bulk!!! You or I can walk in off the street and pay many times less for the same item. Now! That's not right either!

This kind of stuff is just politics and happens in every city, or town. They waste so much money.

 

[chub]

Reminds me of a joke I was told 20 years ago...
As the bank manager said to the vicar "I'll keep them broke if you keep them dumb"

Chub

 

[Nitric]

Then most cities have a "Director of Parks". Maybe start with him if it's something that you feel strongly about. Usually one of those guys that makes 80 grand a year plus "benefits", and you can't ever find or get a hold of them because they live on vacation.

 

[digging440yrs]

Don't like it at all

 

[cudamark]

I agree with bigscoop that more legal investigation is warranted, but, I also agree with Tom that you best not ask an actual person your pressing questions. Do whatever research you can with posted material. Determine who owns the property and who has control over it's use. These should be in writing somewhere. Once these questions are answered, you can proceed onward to the next hurdles. I would hold off on detecting there until then.