Private/Public Access of Lakes

[ambiente]

Some lakes are owned by the government but are inaccessible to the public due to being surrounded by private property.

Some lakes are owned privately by an HOA or something similar.

If lakes are owned by the government should they be accessible to the public?

Is private ownership of lakes or of their surroundings right or wrong? Why?

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Government ownership is cringe and retarded
Private ownership is based and righteous
All the worst rivers in human history are in government ownership and government control, should tell you something
Or the dry area formerly known as the Aral Sea

 

[Chilson]

Private ownership always trumps government ownership.

Personal example, had two lakes nearby where I grew up. One was government owned and available for everyone, the other was entirely privately owned by many individuals. The government lake to this fucking day has a massive algae problem that suffocates most natural life in the lake and makes it kind of nasty to swim in general. The private lake solved this VERY SAME problem a decade ago and actively manages the issue every time it crops up because the private owners want to keep their land value and the general environment intact for their vacations. They invested quite a bit of their own money into long term solutions to keep the lake clean.

Is it selfish? Absolutely, but that is what it is to be human. The fact is that a bunch of rich jagoffs did more for the environment then the government did because they are invested in that property and therefore are ensuring the environment is taken care of. The government is not invested, at least not significantly enough to care, and therefore doesn't give a shit about the environment beyond the bare necessity.

 

[ambiente]

The private lake solved this VERY SAME problem a decade ago and actively manages the issue every time it crops up because the private owners want to keep their land value and the general environment intact for their vacations. They invested quite a bit of their own money into long term solutions to keep the lake clean.

You make a good point. But with government-owned lakes that are maintained and used privately, what guarantees do property owners have that the government doesn't eminent domain their way over all their hard work?

Public-private arrangements only work until they don't. Especially if they're unofficial.

 

[We Are The Witches]

What you're talking about sounds similar to something in Spanish law (to my understanding) called "servidumbre de paso".

Basically, if the property is completely surrounded by someone else's (or multiple people) and there is no way for them to access public space from it without stepping on the other's property, they may request a "servidumbre", and unless of previous accordance, the one that needs the way will pay the other/s for the right to traverse their property, in the least damaging way, or the shortest, etc, with some criteria to consider before it being granted.

So with your first example, if this worked similarly, the government would request something like this, and pay the owner that is surrounding them for the right to pass, but it would have to be in a very restricted manner (like just to get in and out, without damaging anything), but I guess it still would not be open to the public, just to maybe get in there and access it for maintenance.

In regards to private ownership of a body of water, I guess the question for me would be on its mass or volume, or surface it takes, i.e: having some criteria, that if surpasses x metric, cannot longer be owned privately.
But, if owned by the government (and so of significant mass/etc), there should be minimums of maintenance they should do, and if it impacted negatively the surroundings, they should pay for it.

All of this would require very specific law and metrics to follow, but the general gist. With that said, I don't like a private owning a large mass of water (like a lake), and there's even regulation on subterranean water as well, but we're not getting into that.

 

[ambiente]

What you're talking about sounds similar to something in Spanish law (to my understanding) called "servidumbre de paso".

Basically, if the property is completely surrounded by someone else's (or multiple people) and there is no way for them to access public space from it without stepping on the other's property, they may request a "servidumbre", and unless of previous accordance, the one that needs the way will pay the other/s for the right to traverse their property, in the least damaging way, or the shortest, etc, with some criteria to consider before it being granted.

I wish that was what eminent domain was.

The property of subjects is under the eminent domain of the state, so that the state or he who acts for it may use and even alienate and destroy such property, not only in the case of extreme necessity, in which even private persons have a right over the property of others, but for ends of public utility, to which ends those who founded civil society must be supposed to have intended that private ends should give way. But it is to be added that when this is done the state is bound to make good the loss to those who lose their property.

The government can seize property at any time in the United States.

I was asking, given that the government can seize the private property that surrounds the lake they own, why would the property owners bother taking care of the lake?

In regards to private ownership of a body of water, I guess the question for me would be on its mass or volume, or surface it takes, i.e: having some criteria, that if surpasses x metric, cannot longer be owned privately.
But, if owned by the government (and so of significant mass/etc), there should be minimums of maintenance they should do, and if it impacted negatively the surroundings, they should pay for it.

That is a reasonable stance that is convincing to me.

 

[We Are The Witches]

I wish that was what eminent domain was.

Just to be clear, what I said is usually what happens with private owners, like if you had a neighbour completely surrounding your property, it's how it should go according to this "process".

But I don't know if this would be applied here if this happened with the government, and they would just do something like an "expropiación forzosa" (translated to "forced expropriation"), which I believe sometimes happens when they want to put a windmill (for generating electricity), for example.

So this may be like in the US, and there needs to be some criteria that has to be met, it's not like whenever they want, and of course they still pay the original owner.

 

[DeadwastePrime]

what does this have to do with the dumb lake theory thread i made some time ago?

 

[ambiente]

what does this have to do with the dumb lake theory thread i made some time ago?

Not all lakes are public. Some lakes are private. In these private lakes are spectators, swimmers, and divers, just as you described in your vision. Private lakes themselves are hidden from the public and only accessible by invitation or ownership of one of the surrounding properties.

So while the public lakes of knowledge have their own spectators, swimmers, and divers, the private lakes also have their own that people profit from. Perhaps why so many experts are wrong is because they are merely spectators or swimmers of private lakes of knowledge, not fully submerged.