[Quark]

Taken from Sammamish Trail thread:

[Tom]

Basically the right to access to their property. My understanding is the inholders argued that if they had to bear an unreasonable burden of the cost to maintain the road, they effectively lost access to their property. Reading between the lines in the final "decision", it appears the FS worked a deal with them.

[Quark]

Has it been decided that they inholders do have a right to a maintained road, compliments of taxpayers? If so, aren't you angry about that? IMO you can't make an owner of property maintain easement, only to provide it. What you do with that easement is your burden. They get a key to the gate to enter the easement. I think that's all they're required to do. I for one, as a taxpayer, wouldn't like my taxes going to maintain an easement to inholders. If it's to be maintained as bikeable to FS lands and the inholders wish to improve it for their purposes, then of course I understand my tax dollars would be used for the bikeable portion of the cost. But not solely for the use of inholders.

[Backpacker Joe]

Those owners should get together and RENT out keys to the gate. 25.00 or 50.00 for a week or so. I'd pay it. That way they make some money to help pay for road repair.

[Damian]

[aestivate]

[Malachai Constant]

Most of the property is in large tracts 5 acres + held by nonprofit conservation groups some of which have been behind closing the road. hey are valued at 5k per acre and have not been for sale.

[Quark]

re: the keys to the gate. They'll be Federal property, and stamped clearly. Any reproduction on the keys will be a Federal offence. What will be a shame to the inholders is the constant (I predict) vandalism of the locks from vigilantes. Compromising with inholders regarding road maintenance costs does not mean its an admission any rights were violated by the FS - it's simply a compromise, whether agreed to between the parties, or arbitrated. I still see no violation of rights.

[MtnGoat]

there is little that is "scandalous" about the 1874 mining act. as the owners of the land, we have every right to use pieces of it as may be useful, given other considerations such as wilderness areas, of course. the state receives it's due in the form of taxation generated by sale of the goods and salaries and so forth, the customers receive proven value by choosing to pay for goods they agree on the value of, and the person undertaking all the trouble generates profit for themselves. no scandal.