Strip between sidewalk and street? Public or not?

[Gold Maven]

The properties I own, all go to the center of the street.

The city/county/state has a right of way so many feet from center line.

Generally speaking, when the right of ways are marked for utility work, it doesn't mean your land ends there, it just means that's where the easement begins. If you don't own the land, there is no need for an easement.

IMO if you dig there, you are pushing your luck, and possibly giving mders a bad name.

Parks are different, because they are owned by the village, they are not a right of way over private property.

There are plenty of places to dig, I say ask permission or stay out of someone's front yard.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[Treasure_Hunter]

What about the easement for power lines. There are places that run for miles through backyards and fields. I'm guessing 50 , 60 ft easement. They can drive through all the back yards to maintain them. So, by the logic of the thread I should be able to metal detect these backyards for miles.

I don't really care either way, I don't know all the laws on detecting. I just think it's pushing the line when someone is detecting a spot that is maintained by the home owner. A park is different. Even then, Can we legally stop a soccer,football,or baseball game to dig coins? I don't think there is a law that says you can't!

It may also be different in certain areas. Some homeowners or areas may accept it faster than others.

Those easements are different than street easements, they are through private property and owned by the utility company, the street easements are not private property..

Company I worked for had utility easements that run through private property, our company owned that easement for utility purposes, homeowner own the surface but had to give us access to our utility easement for any and all work to maintain our fiber optic.

Sent from my QMV7A using Tapatalk

 

[Clay Diggins]

Let's start back at the beginning with exactly what the definition of an easement is:

An easement is a nonpossessory interest in another's land that entitles the holder only to the right to use such land in the specified manner.

Clearly if you don't own the land you are not subject to an easement. Ownership and possession are not the same as the easement.

It is illogical to say that a city owns land and therefore your land is subject to an easement. An easement is not ownership. An easement is ONLY a specific right to use another's land.

You will have to look at your own deed to determine where your land ends. That is in your deed - not in city or state law.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

great pros & con's guys! If ever a book-mark link could be made for the pro & con discussion of this oft-brought-up topic, this would be one of them.

TH'r taking & clay-diggins do a good job at defining the legal issue. But not taking much of a position on the "detect" or "don't detect" issue. Gold maven, nitric & kemper delve into the "detect or don't detect" issue.

My input at this point is to say: Let's just assume for the moment, that even if the legal part of the definitions debate were ...... ultimately ironed out to conclusively legally mean: "You must ask" or "You can't remove items", or any other such technical legal "no". Then let's just say, for the moment, that it is true. I am willing to admit that this may, in fact, be the true legal status.

But this just spirals out of control for all md'ing on all types land! (except private property). Because the same "legal connect the dots", can probably also be said of ANYWHERE we hunt. Sure, not the same exact components of THIS particular type land. But just saying that if you want to start worrying over all the definitions of what you can and can't do, in-so-far as metal detecting goes, you're going to be "sunk" long ago. You're going to find ways to disclude you from everywhere. I mean , heck, we "dig" (alter, deface, molest, damage, etc... in some people's mind's eyes), we "take" (harvest, collect, remove, etc... in some people's mind's eyes), we disturb cultural heritage (in some people's mind's eyes), etc... The list is endless!

So to be in this hobby, it's almost as if the measuring tool of where you can and can't detect, almost needs to NOT be: "what you can find in laws to tell you no" with. Because if THAT is your measuring tool of where you can go, then you might as well give up now. Instead, the measuring tool should be the actual reality of "does anyone care ?". If there's places where you can go, and no one cares, then ....... go.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Regarding this stance of using the "does anyone care?" test as a rule of deciding, versus: "what does the law say?" rule of deciding, consider this micro-example: This is NOT the current "eavesement" debate, so don't get "lost in the example". It's only an example of the "law" versus "reality" , when it comes to where you can and can't detect:

In CA, most of our coastline beaches are administered by the state (versus county, city, or federal run beaches). And you can md them till you're blue in the face. It's just simply been that way since the 1960s (earliest hobby beginnings). And those that came after, simply went where their mentors before them had gone. It was before anyone ever gave thought to these issues I suppose.

Fast forward to now, 2014, and you can STILL detect them till you're blue in the face, and ... no one cares. HOWEVER, if you ever took time to study long enough and hard enough, and ask enough purist archies on the payroll of the state park's dept, I'm SURE you could find verbage that disallows it. Or if you asked "can I remove things?" the answer would be "no".

So this is a case of "don't ask silly questions". A case of go with reality, and avoid those who might object (don't waltz through an archie convention going on a beach picnic, etc...).

So too is this philosophy play into a lot of the legal md'ing questions that arise. All too often, whenever someone asks "can I detect here", or "can I detect there", someone else is sure to chime in with chapter and verse of some law (or perhaps they went into city or county hall somewhere and found someone to tell them "no"). And presto, it's just assumed and given now as a "no". But sometimes you have to ask yourself (just like in the case of CA state beaches) , "did anyone really care?"

 

[Doubter in MD]

Legal or not, digging on what people consider their property is wrong, in my opinion. You're setting yourself up for confrontation and making metal detectorists look bad.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Legal or not, digging on what people consider their property is wrong, in my opinion. You're setting yourself up for confrontation ....

doubter: I addressed this in my 2nd to the last paragraph of post # 34. Well, sort of. YES my stance does not gaurantee that every last person will "like" it. Or that you or I are gauranteed no confrontations. And I agree that "digging" DOES carry .... uh ... "connotations". But again, if those are all things that dictate the "can and can't factor", then give it up now. Because you will NEVER be free from the connotation of "dig" (unless you're only getting targets off the top of the ground). You will NEVER be gauranteed lack of confrontation. Even in a modern sandbox someone might still gripe.

So .... like nose-picking .... there are certain things we all do with a little ... uh ... discretion in timing. SURE we don't want to have confrontations with homeowners. I am the first to agree. But rather than that make me conclude that I can't (the mere fact of potential confrontation), I will, instead, tailor my efforts to avoid those confrontations. Not sit and home and let my metal detector rust. If it means going at more opportune times, so be it. If it means picking only those in front of commercial ways, apartments, un-occupied homes, or ... quite frankly... at night, then so be it.

I certainly wish I could please every last person who "might object". But if that is my objective, then that's the day I'd simply pick another hobby. This is NOT the hobby for those who are skittish and are afraid to sometimes have to give lip-service.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

ok, let me tone that down a bit. Sorry. Ok here goes:

Sure, we should all avoid confrontations. If someone feels that a given strip of curb-line frontage is "ripe for confrontation", then sure, don't detect there. Don't detect where you are uncomfortable with. But on the other hand, to let that be a "should-be-rule-for-all-md'rs", is also not a given.

It's true for that one individual who senses or fears confrontation. But for others, who are skilled at avoiding such encounters, or have the "golden touch of glib" to set people at ease if someone approached, then I would say that, for them, it's not a "rule" that "thou shalt never detect curb-strips"

 

[Doubter in MD]

Let me put it this way, I'm a detectorist and if I found you digging in what I consider my property, we will have a confrontation. I keep my lawn well manicured and wouldn't appreciate you digging holes in it.

I know, you dig so perfectly that I won't even know you did it. Hogwash. And even if you do, the next one might not.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Tom, to answer you, I have hunted many times the strip of land in question and never been confronted. Now remember, I don't dig plugs, I probe to recover so there is never a sign I was there when I finish and in the areas I hunt that land is city property it is not private... If police are called I'm not concerned at all, it is not breaking any laws...

Sent from my QMV7A using Tapatalk

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Tom - trust me, I hunt parks, "public" commons and wherever I can find soil. But not getting booted off is different from having rights to use.

I have a powerline that crosses the back of my property (20 acres). I have to grant access to the utility company for maintenance. But I kick four-wheelers, dirt bikers, "lumber opportunists" and other folks that are there without my permission off regularly - depending on their attitude. No one on the hill posts and we hunt commonly. The utility company alone has the deeded right-of-way. It's not a road, a paper street or public access. It's a specific right-of-way. If I wanted to I could fence and lock it as long as I provide a key to the power company. I have neighbors with horses that do this.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....I kick four-wheelers, dirt bikers, "lumber opportunists" and other folks that are there without my permission off regularly - depending on their attitude. .....

Charlie: So too can the same be said of curb-strips. Yes I too would kick off someone with "an attitude" from odd-ball uses of the curb-strip in front my house too. But let's be honest here: Using "four-wheelers, dirt-bikers, lumber opportunists" has what intrinsic implication in all those ? HARMING and TAKING (lumber). Well.... sure.... that IS quite different than the power company accessing their power lines.

Therefore is md'ing is given the inherent defintion of equivalence to "damage and stealing" then I would agree with you. But no, I do not equate md'ing to those terms and definitions. I consider md'ing innocuous and harmless.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Let me put it this way, I'm a detectorist and if I found you digging in what I consider my property, we will have a confrontation. I keep my lawn well manicured and wouldn't appreciate you digging holes in it.

I know, you dig so perfectly that I won't even know you did it. Hogwash. And even if you do, the next one might not.

Interesting post Doubter. And everything you're saying would make perfect sense, if we all took one "premise" as a given: The "premise" is clearly seen in your post. The "given" that you are equating md'ing to, is that md'rs do damage. Right? That's what the word "dig" connnotes afterall, in the context of your post. And clearly seen in your 2nd paragraph where you affirm that.

If we accept those as necessary outcomes of md'ing, then sure: everything else you're saying would logically follow. But then if THAT were the case, why stop there? This would also stop all of us from hunting ANY place. Because trust me: there are rules/laws against "destruction" "defacement" "alteration" and so forth everywhere.

Therefore I do not accept this as a definition as necessarily implicit to md'ing. I consider md'ing harmless and innocuous. That's not to say that every last person in the world will agree with that. If so, fine then you gotta get a little better at discretion, picking locations, etc..... The same can be said of beaches, parks, schools, etc.....

 

[Slingshot]

They are called tree yards in Atlanta, that little strip of grass between the curb and sidewalk, also considered public property there. I dug them for years without much problem, and would just move on if anybody got irate. Had the law called on me several times, but the cops knew what I was doing wasn't illegal, and they would just chat a few minutes then head on. A lot of them are diggers too and know what the score is. I finally found an Atlanta Gas shirt at Goodwill and wore it while working the tree yards, only had to say I was locating when approached by people whose homes bordered where I was looking and seemed to dissolve any further issues. Found tons of goodies as people had been parking their cars there for decades, getting in and out every day, and all the foot traffic on the sidewalks, kids running out to the ice cream truck and what not, scattering coins and jewelry everywhere and leaving it all for me years later to come by and scoop it up. Major lesson learned was not to scan over any fresh doggie poop, as you don't really want to be tempted know if there is a nice signal there, believe me!

 

[RustyGold]

The beach is not the same as the "tree yard"! The sand in it's
Natural state recovers from the wind, rain and the ocean the parking
strip doesn't unless it's tended to.

 

[Doubter in MD]

Interesting post Doubter. And everything you're saying would make perfect sense, if we all took one "premise" as a given: The "premise" is clearly seen in your post. The "given" that you are equating md'ing to, is that md'rs do damage. Right? That's what the word "dig" connnotes afterall, in the context of your post. And clearly seen in your 2nd paragraph where you affirm that.

If we accept those as necessary outcomes of md'ing, then sure: everything else you're saying would logically follow. But then if THAT were the case, why stop there? This would also stop all of us from hunting ANY place. Because trust me: there are rules/laws against "destruction" "defacement" "alteration" and so forth everywhere.

Therefore I do not accept this as a definition as necessarily implicit to md'ing. I consider md'ing harmless and innocuous. That's not to say that every last person in the world will agree with that. If so, fine then you gotta get a little better at discretion, picking locations, etc..... The same can be said of beaches, parks, schools, etc.....

Whatever. Don't dig in my yard. If the County decides they have to widen my street or has some other reason to disturb that strip of land in front of my house I will have to put up with it or move. If you start digging holes in that strip we're going to have a problem.

What you fail to recognize is that many detectorists are not particularly careful when they dig and even those who are leave some traces behind.

If I want holes in my yard I'll dig (or probe) them myself.

 

[Doubter in MD]

A right of way or easement does not constitute ownership. It is still owned by the homeowner and the homeowner is responsible for maintaining it.

Even when there is no sidewalk, towns have a right of way of the first several feet into most properties, sometimes more. Would you dig in a yard that has no sidewalk? If not, then you shouldn't dig in one that does.

 

[Diggin-N-Dumps]

I hit them all the time, but normally when there is a school or business adjacent to them. I do hit some around home, but only if they grass looks like shiii or its just rocky and not taken care of. I do have respect for the people that really take care of them and where you can tell they match the homeowners grass..Those ones i dont touch

 

[Clay Diggins]

A right of way or easement does not constitute ownership. It is still owned by the homeowner and the homeowner is responsible for maintaining it.

Even when there is no sidewalk, towns have a right of way of the first several feet into most properties, sometimes more. Would you dig in a yard that has no sidewalk? If not, then you shouldn't dig in one that does.

Thanks Doubter in MD. You speak the truth. I wish we could stick to the simple understanding of the difference between an easement and ownership. That would make the answer to the original posters question obvious.

When this thread started I could only share information about the states I had owned property in. I have checked out the law in most of the states where people have said that some government or the public "own" these easements since then. I'm seeing just the opposite. In every state or city the property owner grants an easement for the sidewalk or utility. The easement in each state is restricted to only those uses spelled out in the easement. I have yet to find a city or state that claims to own that strip.

Like I said before I don't know about everywhere but until now no one has come up with a state or city that has any more than a written easement that allows them specific uses of that strip.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Your property survey shows where your property line ends....

It is not an easement across YOUR property.

Example, My house property line is 35'7" from front wall of my home, that is 3 feet inside of edge of sidewalk closest to my home.....