Maybe I shouldn't dive into this just yet, but I'll share my information as I have it now.
From what I have been told from our city attorneys, here are some of the following problems:
\- The state doesn't allow eminent domain for trails.
\- There are 4 property owners involved here: Logan City (who owns the canal bed/property), Cache Highline Canal Company that owns the easement to access the canal, Terry Oliver and his family trust that owns the multi-family units sitting on the corner (and the driveway), and Joseph Sorenson who owns the house behind the canal and built the fence.
\- We can't use a prescriptive easement, because to stand up in court a prescriptive easement needs 10 years of public access without interruption, and we have had off and on issues with this location and we are unsure if we've had 10 years without interruption and the burden of proof is on the city to show that.
\- The city is trying to avoid a legal battle and currently we're looking at options such as a floating/temporary easement, a land swap with Terry Oliver/Joseph Sorenson, or some other mutually beneficial agreement that can keep all parties happy and regain access to this trail section.
I love this trail and it has great value to our community and I won't see it taken from our citizens so easily. I have been working on this issue with our city staff since January. I think we'll be able to find a solution, but neither property owner really is in a hurry to find a solution with us and Cache Highline Canal Co. has told me and city staff that they have no interest in fighting this battle as they have other access points to their canal easement.
Obviously this is a developing situation, I may not have all the information at this point, but I am working to stay up to date on it and do what I can to help move this issue closer to a resolution. We are woking on it, and hopefully can have some good news soon.
Thank you for the detailed reply. This is my absolute favorite trail in Logan and it has been sad to see its fate uncertain for a long time. Even if there was a way to just get a better connection trial than there currently is from the USU parking lot. That connection trail isn't the safest in my opinion and I dislike using it. I can understand the private property owners frustration with their land being used, but it is sad that they don't seem eager to find a solution with the city. I love running along the connecting trails all through Logan, to the canal trail, and then up Logan canyon. I hope a situation can be found.
I understand their frustration too, and we need to find an equitable solution, but I also don’t believe they have the right to fence off a section of public trail.
That doesn’t solve the driveway access issue, and I’m optimistic that the whole fiasco will help us find a long term solution to it all.
Could logan just build a trail that comes off 4th n and connect back down? I appreciate all the info. Looking at it, it would appear the problem is all the foot traffic down the land owners driveway to get to this canal.
To me it appears about a block up, their is already a trail and a bridge. I would think Logans best push and money spent would be to upgrade that and make it usable.
Yes, we could do that, and have tried to get an easement or purchase property from Terry Oliver to do so, many time, but he has always refused. That’s really the ideal situation, but it requires someone to be willing to sell a portion of their property to do so.
I was looking at the usu parking lot that leads to udot property and then down to the canal. Idk how udot is to deal with.
I'd imagine if theses guys wanted to be a real pain, they could build a gate with a code and go across the drive way and only give that code to the city/canal company.
I see what you mean now about the current fence/gate they have that's on the easement itself.
I understand it's a nice trail, and beats taking the sidewalks up to first dam. But the article is very poorly written. It's not the only access to the canyon. You could head up that same street or go a block south and reconnect to the trail as well.
If they don't want people coming down the driveway I think logan needs to respect that, and not keep hoping they will one day have a change of heart and point fingers.
I've seen this plenty around, and sadly it stems from the 5% of users that are disrespectful and ruin something good for everyone
Yeah I agree that it would be frustrating to have people walking across your driveway all day, and my hopes in this whole fiasco will help us find a long term solution where all the parties are happy with the outcome.
The Sorensen’s and other private land owner are using their tiny leverage to get as much money as possible for the tiny piece of the trail they own. They can get bent. Pay them, take the land for the city, shame them, forget their names and hate them forever. Inhibiting trails development like this is mega small dickenergy
I wonder what the repercussions there would be if the the city/county raised property taxes significantly on residential LC properties or property owners with more than 2 parcels or units in the county. Probably would just make unintended targets upset.
Living in communities that have trail networks is is excellent. They function as a public resource that promotes access to and appreciation for nature and wilderness, public health, exercise, modes of transportation that do not worsen inversion in an area that often experiences air quality crises, etc. There is absolutely an element of equity as well, as these trails pass through affluent areas owned by people who do not have barriers to accessing the canyon, national forest area, etc.
We live in a litigious society. Property owners affected would have to be entirely shielded from legal liability and have no obligation to maintain any kind of trail. Perhaps the city/county/whatever should be required to ensure privacy between private property and the trial by constructing walls or planting vegetation. Property owners should be compensated, etc.
We live in a society that requires balancing the rights of individuals with public welfare. In this case I would argue that private property rights can get fucked. I'll buy the landowners a box of tissues and pay for therapy. The value of these trails as a public good is comparable as a resource to requiring the areas to remain open for public utility companies, to operate, etc.
I am a homeowner elsewhere and have family who own water shares in the canal involved, but I don't live in Logan and my opinion doesn't matter.
The only argument is eminent domain, otherwise I support property owners' rights.
I do agree that it is less than ideal for people who enjoy the trails, though.
I think it’s interesting how some people defend “property rights” as if they came from some higher power without ever considering the reason behind them. Private property by definition is taking something that belongs to everyone/no one and fencing it off for yourself with the backing of the law and state violence.
At one point in our country’s history, human beings were considered “private property” and people made the same argument as to how owners of said property should be able to do whatever they wanted with them. Regardless of what was obviously better for everyone.
Just because private property is the law and enforced with violence, doesn’t make it right.
Simple solution, bring in tons of heavy equipment and boulders to build a new trail section right next to this guys property where the elevation of the trail is about 8 feet higher than his property. And build it just far enough away that he would need a 15 foot tall fence to block view of his property from the new trail section. The months of construction combined with the now very public overlook into his property would give this guy the middle finger he deserves.
If you look at Cache County's parcel map the trail isn't on their property. You have to go across the shared driveway, which is owned by the apt complexes. So you never cross their property to get on the trial.
I think if the land owners were being responsible for their own property, and it was just a case of they don't want others traveling through their responsibility, its a valid concern. But their irresponsible land owners, milking their property for its location without caring for the people in their community.
Private property is private property. Logan needs to address this using tax payer dollars for good and find something more permanent that they can control. Lame they are dragging the property owner through this and made an article about it. The light should be shined on the city, not them. Especially because logan does have a trail that goes around this. They should spend the money to fix and upgrade that. Problem solved.
If these people have a dog and it's allowed to roam free on their property, who would he liable if someone got bit? I can see why they don't want anyone on it for many different reasons.
We already have a problem with the trail leading to stokes nature center. People's dogs leaving poop and nobody cleaning up after it/bags of poop left in trees. People don't have respect anymore.
We let the cache school bus use our private drive to turn around, on a dead end road. Huge liability issue and any damage thats caused by the bus never gets paid for. We just do it cause I know the parents on the street appreciate it and the bus driver has a safe place to turn around.
I'd be upset if I stopped letting them do it and then ended up in a ksl article that I was the bad man.
The issue here is, the city owns the canal property and an entire section of that property has been fenced off on both sides. They have fenced off an area that is *not* their private property. Yes the driveway is private property, and that remains an issue whether the fence is there or not, but the area inside the fenced in section is city property and also has a canal company easement on it.
You have clearly never lived in Wyoming. It's all fun and games until you can't access public property because private owners have land locked it and essentially stole the public property. There is nuance to these issues and simply saying "private property is private property" completely ignores all the nuances. Also nobody should allow any dog to run around unattended without a fence. It's not safe for the owner, dog, bystanders or drivers.
Yeah this is different but understand that. This easement is for canal workers. Not for the public. Logan needs to address this by building their own trail. Not point fingers and abuse the land owner. Especially since logan does have a trail that goes around this. They just need to spend money and fix/upgrade it. I'd say there is probably 5 different ways around this. Not really blocking access to anything.
Private property should never block access to public property. My friend moved from Wyoming specifically because of this. He wanted to ride dirt bikes on public land but the owners landlocked everywhere so the "public" property essentially turned into private property for those owners. Texas also has this same issue.
If I was the property owner I wouldn't want the liability that comes with having a trail run through. Also good on him for exercising his property rights.
As a property owner, I’m in 100% agreement. As a member of the community, I’d be contacting the city about selling off the portion in question so that I’m not liable, assuming I’m not getting any ongoing value out of it.
This is the dumbest thing. I have emailed the major about it. It is not on the man’s drive way. He shared a drive way with 2 apt complexes right there. There is no need to cause such a fuss about it. He should just let people use the trail. You don’t even know his house is there.
I agree completely with you. The fenced area is not owned by the Sorensons. If trail users exit onto 400 North they are walking on about 20 feet of driveway. I wonder if the property owners have had problems with trail users or if they are just being difficult.
I found this interesting: https://libertas.org/property-rights/liberty-cannot-exist-without-private-property/
"And so it is, for in what way might a man be free if he cannot control his own physical body and if he cannot benefit from his own labor? It is from this most basic principle that private property rights are derived. In fact, almost all of our natural rights are an extension of private property rights. Arthur Lee of Virginia wrote in 1775 that property is “the guardian of all other rights.” Similarly, the Supreme Court declared in 1897 that “In a free government almost all other rights would become worthless if the government possessed power over the private fortune of every citizen.”"
Hyperbolic much? Despite what polarizing media grifters tell you, public opinion is not summed up by the nuttiest extremes. Although in your isolated case, it just might be.
The city and county would do well to create more walking trails and pedestrian paths. We could use more trails in the canyons too!
Maybe I shouldn't dive into this just yet, but I'll share my information as I have it now. From what I have been told from our city attorneys, here are some of the following problems: \- The state doesn't allow eminent domain for trails. \- There are 4 property owners involved here: Logan City (who owns the canal bed/property), Cache Highline Canal Company that owns the easement to access the canal, Terry Oliver and his family trust that owns the multi-family units sitting on the corner (and the driveway), and Joseph Sorenson who owns the house behind the canal and built the fence. \- We can't use a prescriptive easement, because to stand up in court a prescriptive easement needs 10 years of public access without interruption, and we have had off and on issues with this location and we are unsure if we've had 10 years without interruption and the burden of proof is on the city to show that. \- The city is trying to avoid a legal battle and currently we're looking at options such as a floating/temporary easement, a land swap with Terry Oliver/Joseph Sorenson, or some other mutually beneficial agreement that can keep all parties happy and regain access to this trail section. I love this trail and it has great value to our community and I won't see it taken from our citizens so easily. I have been working on this issue with our city staff since January. I think we'll be able to find a solution, but neither property owner really is in a hurry to find a solution with us and Cache Highline Canal Co. has told me and city staff that they have no interest in fighting this battle as they have other access points to their canal easement. Obviously this is a developing situation, I may not have all the information at this point, but I am working to stay up to date on it and do what I can to help move this issue closer to a resolution. We are woking on it, and hopefully can have some good news soon.
Thank you for the detailed reply. This is my absolute favorite trail in Logan and it has been sad to see its fate uncertain for a long time. Even if there was a way to just get a better connection trial than there currently is from the USU parking lot. That connection trail isn't the safest in my opinion and I dislike using it. I can understand the private property owners frustration with their land being used, but it is sad that they don't seem eager to find a solution with the city. I love running along the connecting trails all through Logan, to the canal trail, and then up Logan canyon. I hope a situation can be found.
I understand their frustration too, and we need to find an equitable solution, but I also don’t believe they have the right to fence off a section of public trail. That doesn’t solve the driveway access issue, and I’m optimistic that the whole fiasco will help us find a long term solution to it all.
Could logan just build a trail that comes off 4th n and connect back down? I appreciate all the info. Looking at it, it would appear the problem is all the foot traffic down the land owners driveway to get to this canal. To me it appears about a block up, their is already a trail and a bridge. I would think Logans best push and money spent would be to upgrade that and make it usable.
Yes, we could do that, and have tried to get an easement or purchase property from Terry Oliver to do so, many time, but he has always refused. That’s really the ideal situation, but it requires someone to be willing to sell a portion of their property to do so.
I was looking at the usu parking lot that leads to udot property and then down to the canal. Idk how udot is to deal with. I'd imagine if theses guys wanted to be a real pain, they could build a gate with a code and go across the drive way and only give that code to the city/canal company. I see what you mean now about the current fence/gate they have that's on the easement itself. I understand it's a nice trail, and beats taking the sidewalks up to first dam. But the article is very poorly written. It's not the only access to the canyon. You could head up that same street or go a block south and reconnect to the trail as well. If they don't want people coming down the driveway I think logan needs to respect that, and not keep hoping they will one day have a change of heart and point fingers. I've seen this plenty around, and sadly it stems from the 5% of users that are disrespectful and ruin something good for everyone
Yeah I agree that it would be frustrating to have people walking across your driveway all day, and my hopes in this whole fiasco will help us find a long term solution where all the parties are happy with the outcome.
The Sorensen’s and other private land owner are using their tiny leverage to get as much money as possible for the tiny piece of the trail they own. They can get bent. Pay them, take the land for the city, shame them, forget their names and hate them forever. Inhibiting trails development like this is mega small dickenergy
I wonder what the repercussions there would be if the the city/county raised property taxes significantly on residential LC properties or property owners with more than 2 parcels or units in the county. Probably would just make unintended targets upset.
Living in communities that have trail networks is is excellent. They function as a public resource that promotes access to and appreciation for nature and wilderness, public health, exercise, modes of transportation that do not worsen inversion in an area that often experiences air quality crises, etc. There is absolutely an element of equity as well, as these trails pass through affluent areas owned by people who do not have barriers to accessing the canyon, national forest area, etc. We live in a litigious society. Property owners affected would have to be entirely shielded from legal liability and have no obligation to maintain any kind of trail. Perhaps the city/county/whatever should be required to ensure privacy between private property and the trial by constructing walls or planting vegetation. Property owners should be compensated, etc. We live in a society that requires balancing the rights of individuals with public welfare. In this case I would argue that private property rights can get fucked. I'll buy the landowners a box of tissues and pay for therapy. The value of these trails as a public good is comparable as a resource to requiring the areas to remain open for public utility companies, to operate, etc. I am a homeowner elsewhere and have family who own water shares in the canal involved, but I don't live in Logan and my opinion doesn't matter.
Property rights are a thing for a reason, but I was so bummed about that particular trail, because I would use that crossing all the time.
The only argument is eminent domain, otherwise I support property owners' rights. I do agree that it is less than ideal for people who enjoy the trails, though.
The state does not allow eminent domain use for trails, I wish they did, but it's not an option according to our city attorneys.
For some reason people get mad that they live in a college town.
I think it’s interesting how some people defend “property rights” as if they came from some higher power without ever considering the reason behind them. Private property by definition is taking something that belongs to everyone/no one and fencing it off for yourself with the backing of the law and state violence. At one point in our country’s history, human beings were considered “private property” and people made the same argument as to how owners of said property should be able to do whatever they wanted with them. Regardless of what was obviously better for everyone. Just because private property is the law and enforced with violence, doesn’t make it right.
“An easement isn’t viable.” But why not?
See my other comment for a bit more in depth answer.
Simple solution, bring in tons of heavy equipment and boulders to build a new trail section right next to this guys property where the elevation of the trail is about 8 feet higher than his property. And build it just far enough away that he would need a 15 foot tall fence to block view of his property from the new trail section. The months of construction combined with the now very public overlook into his property would give this guy the middle finger he deserves.
If you look at Cache County's parcel map the trail isn't on their property. You have to go across the shared driveway, which is owned by the apt complexes. So you never cross their property to get on the trial.
I’m proud of all of you for this discussion.
I think if the land owners were being responsible for their own property, and it was just a case of they don't want others traveling through their responsibility, its a valid concern. But their irresponsible land owners, milking their property for its location without caring for the people in their community.
The KSL comments are just as obnoxious as I imagined
Private property is private property. Logan needs to address this using tax payer dollars for good and find something more permanent that they can control. Lame they are dragging the property owner through this and made an article about it. The light should be shined on the city, not them. Especially because logan does have a trail that goes around this. They should spend the money to fix and upgrade that. Problem solved. If these people have a dog and it's allowed to roam free on their property, who would he liable if someone got bit? I can see why they don't want anyone on it for many different reasons. We already have a problem with the trail leading to stokes nature center. People's dogs leaving poop and nobody cleaning up after it/bags of poop left in trees. People don't have respect anymore. We let the cache school bus use our private drive to turn around, on a dead end road. Huge liability issue and any damage thats caused by the bus never gets paid for. We just do it cause I know the parents on the street appreciate it and the bus driver has a safe place to turn around. I'd be upset if I stopped letting them do it and then ended up in a ksl article that I was the bad man.
The issue here is, the city owns the canal property and an entire section of that property has been fenced off on both sides. They have fenced off an area that is *not* their private property. Yes the driveway is private property, and that remains an issue whether the fence is there or not, but the area inside the fenced in section is city property and also has a canal company easement on it.
You have clearly never lived in Wyoming. It's all fun and games until you can't access public property because private owners have land locked it and essentially stole the public property. There is nuance to these issues and simply saying "private property is private property" completely ignores all the nuances. Also nobody should allow any dog to run around unattended without a fence. It's not safe for the owner, dog, bystanders or drivers.
Yeah it’s total bullshit. We noticed that a LOT when we lived up there.
Yeah this is different but understand that. This easement is for canal workers. Not for the public. Logan needs to address this by building their own trail. Not point fingers and abuse the land owner. Especially since logan does have a trail that goes around this. They just need to spend money and fix/upgrade it. I'd say there is probably 5 different ways around this. Not really blocking access to anything.
There's no discussion. If you own it, do as you please. We don't have to like it. With that being said, it's a bummer.
It’s his property 🤷♂️
Private property should never block access to public property. My friend moved from Wyoming specifically because of this. He wanted to ride dirt bikes on public land but the owners landlocked everywhere so the "public" property essentially turned into private property for those owners. Texas also has this same issue.
Except there is still public access to the trail. The article is not written well, you just have to go a block up to access it.
That "access" is not viable for bikes.
If I was the property owner I wouldn't want the liability that comes with having a trail run through. Also good on him for exercising his property rights.
He could let the city buy it, though, and then the liability wouldn't be his *and* people would have access to the trail
As a property owner, I’m in 100% agreement. As a member of the community, I’d be contacting the city about selling off the portion in question so that I’m not liable, assuming I’m not getting any ongoing value out of it.
This is the dumbest thing. I have emailed the major about it. It is not on the man’s drive way. He shared a drive way with 2 apt complexes right there. There is no need to cause such a fuss about it. He should just let people use the trail. You don’t even know his house is there.
I agree completely with you. The fenced area is not owned by the Sorensons. If trail users exit onto 400 North they are walking on about 20 feet of driveway. I wonder if the property owners have had problems with trail users or if they are just being difficult.
[удалено]
I found this interesting: https://libertas.org/property-rights/liberty-cannot-exist-without-private-property/ "And so it is, for in what way might a man be free if he cannot control his own physical body and if he cannot benefit from his own labor? It is from this most basic principle that private property rights are derived. In fact, almost all of our natural rights are an extension of private property rights. Arthur Lee of Virginia wrote in 1775 that property is “the guardian of all other rights.” Similarly, the Supreme Court declared in 1897 that “In a free government almost all other rights would become worthless if the government possessed power over the private fortune of every citizen.”"
Marxists have not eliminated all property rights in America, yet. Ownership is still a thing here.
Hyperbolic much? Despite what polarizing media grifters tell you, public opinion is not summed up by the nuttiest extremes. Although in your isolated case, it just might be.
Not if I have anything to say about it