Forums: Climbing Partners: US - South:
Yellow Bluff SCC Screw up. Trespassing
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for US - South

Premier Sponsor:

 


D.BCooper


Sep 20, 2009, 7:56 AM
Post #1 of 24 (4582 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 20, 2009
Posts: 6

Yellow Bluff SCC Screw up. Trespassing
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Here is a post I emailed myself. Looks like the SCC is keeping from us. Now I present to you. The biggest mistake made by the Coalition they want kept secret. Shortly after I saved this, the thread was deleted by the Admins. I agree with Vance freedom of speach is a right. So all should be kept in the loop.

Gus,
Response to your email is below, this has also been placed on the SEC’s public forum due to your organization’s members are asking what is going on and no one is giving them “our” side of the story and what your organization is telling us back. I know I have been asked not to post on this forum due to non-board members “may not understand all these issues” but I recall free speech is a right for all. Folks may not agree with what I have to say but I have a right to say it. I know you are simply trying to do your job to make this matter simply “disappear” but as one of your SEC posters said too, we feel you just did not do the needed proper up-front research on this property before you bought it. I greatly feel for all the folks who contributed to buying this land but I ask that they put themselves in our shoes where NO ONE asked us beforehand for permission to climb this wall and no one told us any party was buying this bottom land for climbing purposes. We have been very patient on this issue for quite awhile but this last round of emails today basically trying to dead-end this (which is indeed a good lawyers’ job) makes me realize that we need to take further action to resolve this. This email is just a first step. UNTIL this is resolved she requests that there be no trespassing on this land. You continually tell the SEC folks it is fine to climb this wall but our direction to cease all climbing on this land is still fully in effect.
Gus, to answer your question, “I am going to plainly state what has been nagging at everyone, what do you want? No one is coming on to your land, land where no one resides in the first instance.” Our answer is: She wants NO Trespassing; we firmly believe that any legal entity/law enforcement agency will agree with what we found regarding vertical property rights. You continually ignore our findings on this issue and even the Access Fund folks agree with the vertical property rights findings. Our deeds clearly state where the horizontal property line is. If this was a perfect 90 degree wall (which it is not), making surface contact with the wall boundary would be considered trespassing. From inspection, more of this wall from the top edge property line is underhang than overhang so MOST of this wall is indeed OUR LAND which you continually assert it is NOT. Also, what difference does it make that no one resides on the land? My parents’ intent was to have this as a place of undisturbed peace, quiet, and tranquility. Whether someone occupies this land makes NO legal difference.
If you knew my mom (like Roy Simmons and I do), you would CLEARLY understand her situation, your statement " not sure how climbing is distressing to anyone other than the individual climbing" is offensive. For over 30 years, anyone who has climbed this wall has had to obtain permission from us to. You failed to obtain ANY permission from my family to climb this wall. You "quietly" (it was called Crag X I see for a long time on this forum) bought the bottom land and now you have “egg on your face” (as a previous SEC Crag poster hinted) for not doing the proper research that indicates now that you indeed do NOT own a majority of the face of the wall and are trespassing. Why is this lack of research on your part my family’s fault?? What do we need to take all these actions?? If it is your land prove it! I do not think you can because it is not…..
How interesting that you want US to go through the steps you mentioned below to prove we own this land, the Access Fund clearly states this is YOUR job. Why should WE pay for YOUR mistake. From what my lawyer says this has NOTHING to do with mineral rights, just merely vertical property rights which are COMMON KNOWLEDGE. I think your SEC posters will agree that with you NEVER asking us permission (as the Access Fund guidelines say YOU SHOULD), it should be your ante to prove ownership. I know these requests below are a ploy for us to hopefully “go away”, but we are fully committed to following this to our desired goal. These requests from you involve “mineral rights” investigation which have NOTHING to do with the vertical land ownership involved here and they simply look like a distraction. Trespassing is trespassing. Horizontal or vertical. Your reply of “I would kindly request you produce a 1) subsurface survey of the area you maintain is subject to mineral rights, produced by a third party surveyor, 2) produce some evidence of interference with active mineral rights, and 3) produce evidence of ownership of mineral rights. To date I have seen nothing but emails from you mainting such exist.” is confusing due to this is not a minerals rights issue, No one is ’mining” here. I think the honorable thing for you to do here is for us to jointly agree on a third party surveyor to assess this and clearly determine what routes are off limits due to the trespass issue.
From reading these posts I think the SEC folks are fair minded common-sense folks who want to hear what is REALLY going on with this so that is why I have posted here even though I have been asked not to, thanks to all, Vance George


billcoe_


Sep 20, 2009, 8:07 AM
Post #2 of 24 (4574 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4668

Re: [D.BCooper] Yellow Bluff SCC Screw up. Trespassing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

So.....still a little vague here. You (or you mom) own the adjacent property and since the climbing organization bought the cliff they are climbing there. Posting this on a climbing website will get you.....what again?

D.BCooper wrote:
Here is a post I emailed myself. Looks like the SCC is keeping from us. Now I present to you. The biggest mistake made by the Coalition they want kept secret. Shortly after I saved this, the thread was deleted by the Admins. I agree with Vance freedom of speach is a right. So all should be kept in the loop.

Gus,
Response to your email is below, this has also been placed on the SEC’s public forum due to your organization’s members are asking what is going on and no one is giving them “our” side of the story and what your organization is telling us back. I know I have been asked not to post on this forum due to non-board members “may not understand all these issues” but I recall free speech is a right for all. Folks may not agree with what I have to say but I have a right to say it. I know you are simply trying to do your job to make this matter simply “disappear” but as one of your SEC posters said too, we feel you just did not do the needed proper up-front research on this property before you bought it. I greatly feel for all the folks who contributed to buying this land but I ask that they put themselves in our shoes where NO ONE asked us beforehand for permission to climb this wall and no one told us any party was buying this bottom land for climbing purposes. We have been very patient on this issue for quite awhile but this last round of emails today basically trying to dead-end this (which is indeed a good lawyers’ job) makes me realize that we need to take further action to resolve this. This email is just a first step. UNTIL this is resolved she requests that there be no trespassing on this land. You continually tell the SEC folks it is fine to climb this wall but our direction to cease all climbing on this land is still fully in effect.
Gus, to answer your question, “I am going to plainly state what has been nagging at everyone, what do you want? No one is coming on to your land, land where no one resides in the first instance.” Our answer is: She wants NO Trespassing; we firmly believe that any legal entity/law enforcement agency will agree with what we found regarding vertical property rights. You continually ignore our findings on this issue and even the Access Fund folks agree with the vertical property rights findings. Our deeds clearly state where the horizontal property line is. If this was a perfect 90 degree wall (which it is not), making surface contact with the wall boundary would be considered trespassing. From inspection, more of this wall from the top edge property line is underhang than overhang so MOST of this wall is indeed OUR LAND which you continually assert it is NOT. Also, what difference does it make that no one resides on the land? My parents’ intent was to have this as a place of undisturbed peace, quiet, and tranquility. Whether someone occupies this land makes NO legal difference.
If you knew my mom (like Roy Simmons and I do), you would CLEARLY understand her situation, your statement " not sure how climbing is distressing to anyone other than the individual climbing" is offensive. For over 30 years, anyone who has climbed this wall has had to obtain permission from us to. You failed to obtain ANY permission from my family to climb this wall. You "quietly" (it was called Crag X I see for a long time on this forum) bought the bottom land and now you have “egg on your face” (as a previous SEC Crag poster hinted) for not doing the proper research that indicates now that you indeed do NOT own a majority of the face of the wall and are trespassing. Why is this lack of research on your part my family’s fault?? What do we need to take all these actions?? If it is your land prove it! I do not think you can because it is not…..
How interesting that you want US to go through the steps you mentioned below to prove we own this land, the Access Fund clearly states this is YOUR job. Why should WE pay for YOUR mistake. From what my lawyer says this has NOTHING to do with mineral rights, just merely vertical property rights which are COMMON KNOWLEDGE. I think your SEC posters will agree that with you NEVER asking us permission (as the Access Fund guidelines say YOU SHOULD), it should be your ante to prove ownership. I know these requests below are a ploy for us to hopefully “go away”, but we are fully committed to following this to our desired goal. These requests from you involve “mineral rights” investigation which have NOTHING to do with the vertical land ownership involved here and they simply look like a distraction. Trespassing is trespassing. Horizontal or vertical. Your reply of “I would kindly request you produce a 1) subsurface survey of the area you maintain is subject to mineral rights, produced by a third party surveyor, 2) produce some evidence of interference with active mineral rights, and 3) produce evidence of ownership of mineral rights. To date I have seen nothing but emails from you mainting such exist.” is confusing due to this is not a minerals rights issue, No one is ’mining” here. I think the honorable thing for you to do here is for us to jointly agree on a third party surveyor to assess this and clearly determine what routes are off limits due to the trespass issue.
From reading these posts I think the SEC folks are fair minded common-sense folks who want to hear what is REALLY going on with this so that is why I have posted here even though I have been asked not to, thanks to all, Vance George


skelterjohn


Sep 20, 2009, 8:18 AM
Post #3 of 24 (4572 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 29, 2007
Posts: 55

Re: [D.BCooper] Yellow Bluff SCC Screw up. Trespassing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

Basically you're throwing a hissy fit about some people doing something on or near the borders to your land, where you will never see them, hear from them, or be affected by them except to have the knowledge that someone may be there, now and then, and you want sympathy in this forum?

Get a life.


D.BCooper


Sep 20, 2009, 8:24 AM
Post #4 of 24 (4567 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 20, 2009
Posts: 6

Post deleted by D.BCooper [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  

 


colatownkid


Sep 20, 2009, 8:58 AM
Post #5 of 24 (4540 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 27, 2007
Posts: 512

Re: [skelterjohn] Yellow Bluff SCC Screw up. Trespassing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

skelterjohn wrote:
Basically you're throwing a hissy fit about some people doing something on or near the borders to your land, where you will never see them, hear from them, or be affected by them except to have the knowledge that someone may be there, now and then, and you want sympathy in this forum?

Get a life.

Really? I'll openly admit that I'm a climber and I'd like to see a cliff opened to climbing as much as the next person, but I feel that it's attitudes such as these that cause access issues in the first place.

Climbing access is rarely, if ever, a RIGHT. Access is a PRIVILEGE. If someone other than you legally owns the land, you can be sure that you are not guaranteed access to climb there, ever, without their explicit permission.

I admit that I don't know the specifics of Yellow Bluff, vertical property rights, mineral rights, etc. What I do know is that if someone raises a legitimate trespassing concern, that concern should be respected. Maybe it's correct, maybe it isn't. Being antagonistic is not going to solve the issue. Being respectful, listening openly to what the other party has to say, realizing that you may actually be wrong, and trying to come to a solution both parties agree on is what will solve problems.

I feel that the SCC has a responsibility to all its various donors to ensure that climbing access is in fact granted where they said it would be when donations were made. If that means investigating the issue of vertical property rights and having to buy a few yards of land at the top of the cliff, so be it. If that simply means investigating, discovering they did everything right in the first place, and just putting up with a little hassle to do so, great.

That sure beats the hell out of hiding information, refusing to address legitimate concerns, promoting access at an area illegally, and ultimately causing closure at a place people want to climb.

Wouldn't it be great to settle this by simple communication and compromise?


jcclimbs


Sep 20, 2009, 1:13 PM
Post #6 of 24 (4468 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 4, 2002
Posts: 26

Re: [colatownkid] Yellow Bluff SCC Screw up. Trespassing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
I know I have been asked not to post on this forum due to non-board members “may not understand all these issues” but I recall free speech is a right for all. Folks may not agree with what I have to say but I have a right to say it.

Umm, no. The First Amendment says that the government shall not infringe freedom of speech (despite evidence to the contrary, such as McCain-Feingold, but I digress). You do not have a right to express yourself in a private forum if they don't want you to. You can of course go outside and shout it to your heart's content, or until the neighbors beat you up.

It would help this country a lot if citizens were required to gain a basic understanding of civics instead of purchasing medical insurance. I mean, as long as we're requiring 'free' citizens to do things simply because some segment thinks it's a good idea.

In reply to:
Being respectful, listening openly to what the other party has to say, realizing that you may actually be wrong, and trying to come to a solution both parties agree on is what will solve problems.

I feel that the SCC has a responsibility to all its various donors to ensure that climbing access is in fact granted where they said it would be when donations were made. If that means investigating the issue of vertical property rights and having to buy a few yards of land at the top of the cliff, so be it. If that simply means investigating, discovering they did everything right in the first place, and just putting up with a little hassle to do so, great.

That sure beats the hell out of hiding information, refusing to address legitimate concerns, promoting access at an area illegally, and ultimately causing closure at a place people want to climb.

Wouldn't it be great to settle this by simple communication and compromise?

And the Kumbaya crowd is heard from.

a) What makes you think that buying a strip at the top is an option? Wishful thinking? Having seen a lot of the discourse on the SCC website I'd have to say it isn't.
b) It's my understanding that they have listened respectfully, have put up with a great deal of hassle, and addressed legitimate concerns. It is my understanding that The SCC's lawyers feel strongly that climbers are not trespassing. Knowing the people who run the SCC, I believe that if they felt there was any legitimacy to the other owner's argument, they would tell people to stay away until it was resolved. Fortunately, they are not the kind of people to try and hide something just because it might make them look bad.Evidently, the owner above the cliff and, he says, his lawyers feel differently. If so, settling this 'by simple communication and compromise' isn't likely to happen, no matter how hard we tap our heels together and wish it were so.
c) How do you know that the SCC hasn't communicated with the donors? I can assure you that letting this pissing match go on the website simply for the edification of a lot of people who may not have a dog in the fight (other than wanting to climb there) is a recipe for engendering further ill will and hardening positions.

You don't be any chance work for the Obama State Dept. do you?


seatbeltpants


Sep 20, 2009, 1:27 PM
Post #7 of 24 (4456 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 9, 2008
Posts: 581

Re: [skelterjohn] Yellow Bluff SCC Screw up. Trespassing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

skelterjohn wrote:
Basically you're throwing a hissy fit about some people doing something on or near the borders to your land, where you will never see them, hear from them, or be affected by them except to have the knowledge that someone may be there, now and then, and you want sympathy in this forum?

Get a life.

i know absolutely nothing about the specifics of this issue, but the attitude presented here is bullshit - if i own the land you can kiss my arse if you think you can demand access, whether that access will ever be noticed by me or not.

you want access? you buy the land or negotiate access with the owner. simple as that.

steve


colatownkid


Sep 20, 2009, 1:31 PM
Post #8 of 24 (4455 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 27, 2007
Posts: 512

Re: [jcclimbs] Yellow Bluff SCC Screw up. Trespassing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jcclimbs wrote:
In reply to:
I know I have been asked not to post on this forum due to non-board members “may not understand all these issues” but I recall free speech is a right for all. Folks may not agree with what I have to say but I have a right to say it.

Umm, no. The First Amendment says that the government shall not infringe freedom of speech (despite evidence to the contrary, such as McCain-Feingold, but I digress). You do not have a right to express yourself in a private forum if they don't want you to. You can of course go outside and shout it to your heart's content, or until the neighbors beat you up.

It would help this country a lot if citizens were required to gain a basic understanding of civics instead of purchasing medical insurance. I mean, as long as we're requiring 'free' citizens to do things simply because some segment thinks it's a good idea.

In reply to:
Being respectful, listening openly to what the other party has to say, realizing that you may actually be wrong, and trying to come to a solution both parties agree on is what will solve problems.

I feel that the SCC has a responsibility to all its various donors to ensure that climbing access is in fact granted where they said it would be when donations were made. If that means investigating the issue of vertical property rights and having to buy a few yards of land at the top of the cliff, so be it. If that simply means investigating, discovering they did everything right in the first place, and just putting up with a little hassle to do so, great.

That sure beats the hell out of hiding information, refusing to address legitimate concerns, promoting access at an area illegally, and ultimately causing closure at a place people want to climb.

Wouldn't it be great to settle this by simple communication and compromise?

And the Kumbaya crowd is heard from.

a) What makes you think that buying a strip at the top is an option? Wishful thinking? Having seen a lot of the discourse on the SCC website I'd have to say it isn't.

I don't know if buying anything at the top is an option. I was merely trying to point out that there may be alternatives. If you say that it likely isn't, I'll take your word for it.

jcclimbs wrote:
b) It's my understanding that they have listened respectfully, have put up with a great deal of hassle, and addressed legitimate concerns. It is my understanding that The SCC's lawyers feel strongly that climbers are not trespassing. Knowing the people who run the SCC, I believe that if they felt there was any legitimacy to the other owner's argument, they would tell people to stay away until it was resolved. Fortunately, they are not the kind of people to try and hide something just because it might make them look bad.Evidently, the owner above the cliff and, he says, his lawyers feel differently. If so, settling this 'by simple communication and compromise' isn't likely to happen, no matter how hard we tap our heels together and wish it were so.

Fair enough. I agree that at a certain point enough is enough. If the SCC has gone through all these measures, then, yeah, it's probably time for court if no agreement can been reached.

jcclimbs wrote:
c) How do you know that the SCC hasn't communicated with the donors?


I don't. If they have, props to them. If not, they should probably get on that.

jcclimbs wrote:
I can assure you that letting this pissing match go on the website simply for the edification of a lot of people who may not have a dog in the fight (other than wanting to climb there) is a recipe for engendering further ill will and hardening positions.

I think we're on the same page on your last point--about hardening ill will. Hence my previous response. Calling someone a crybaby isn't going to help anything. I suppose that's all I was really trying to get across--these issues always go both ways. Name calling and telling landowners to just get over it can make climbers look like assholes (regardless of intent, correctness, etc.).

To that end, thank you for bringing the SCC side of the argument to light.

jcclimbs wrote:
You don't be any chance work for the Obama State Dept. do you?

Nope.


possum2082


Sep 20, 2009, 1:40 PM
Post #9 of 24 (4446 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 26, 2008
Posts: 218

Re: [D.BCooper] Yellow Bluff SCC Screw up. Trespassing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

some background for the clueless (i include myself):
http://www.seclimbers.org/...=article&sid=468


shockabuku


Sep 20, 2009, 3:07 PM
Post #10 of 24 (4405 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4867

Re: [D.BCooper] Yellow Bluff SCC Screw up. Trespassing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

INRT.

You missed the day in school dealing with "get to the point" and "keep it simple" didn't you?


vegastradguy


Sep 20, 2009, 4:02 PM
Post #11 of 24 (4372 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919

Re: [D.BCooper] Yellow Bluff SCC Screw up. Trespassing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

D.BCooper wrote:
Not me or my mother Bill. If you read the SCC has bought a tract of land. Now the Property lines run to the cliff, You following me. If VKGeorge's family owns the land to the cliff from the top and the sec owns the land to the cliff on the bottom. Then the person whom owns the land at the top has a vertical property line to the bottom. So as far as I can see VK George has every right to be pissed. Eighty percent of the wall is undercut so that would be his property. Read carefully the SCC has erased all threads concerning the matter. HIDING SOMETHING ARE WE? Why not tell the people whats happening?

so, you're saying that climbers are basically climbing on the rock underneath your property? imho, it seems that if your property line extends vertically down from the cliff line, and the cliff is undercut, then how do you resolve that the SECC owns the land up the the cliff line on the bottom? wouldnt they only own the land up to whatever the undercut line is?

if the SECC does indeed own the land up to the cliff line, then it would follow that the cliff in and of itself would actually be a neutral zone- neither party could really lay claim to it.

anyway, it seems that you're upset that climbers are climbing rock underneath your property- and i could understand if there was a noise nuisance, but in the end, it seems like maybe some polite discourse to be considerate of the upper property owners may be the best approach here.


adatesman


Sep 20, 2009, 4:30 PM
Post #12 of 24 (4357 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479

Post deleted by adatesman [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  

 


D.BCooper


Sep 20, 2009, 6:06 PM
Post #13 of 24 (4344 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 20, 2009
Posts: 6

Re: [adatesman] Yellow Bluff SCC Screw up. Trespassing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

 


(This post was edited by D.BCooper on Oct 8, 2009, 10:07 PM)


D.BCooper


Sep 20, 2009, 6:11 PM
Post #14 of 24 (4343 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 20, 2009
Posts: 6

Re: [vegastradguy] Yellow Bluff SCC Screw up. Trespassing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Not my family brother. I just read the forums there after this was posted 2 threads were deleted. I figured people needed to know whats going on with there donations.


D.BCooper


Sep 20, 2009, 6:17 PM
Post #15 of 24 (4342 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 20, 2009
Posts: 6

Re: [vegastradguy] Yellow Bluff SCC Screw up. Trespassing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Also its my understanding that we own to the top of the cliff and they own the line to the top of the cliff. So Its simple a property line is verticle. That means they own the property not the SEC. Or most of the cliff line. If they want to level the propery entirely its there prerogative. If they feel like matching the property on the same grade they can. What is so hard to see here. We need answers and we are not getting them. Is it legal to climb here or not? Are we trespassing?


vegastradguy


Sep 20, 2009, 9:56 PM
Post #16 of 24 (4327 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919

Re: [D.BCooper] Yellow Bluff SCC Screw up. Trespassing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

meh, i cant visualize this. i need pictures, topos, something to help me grasp what the beef is.


jcclimbs


Sep 21, 2009, 6:55 AM
Post #17 of 24 (4311 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 4, 2002
Posts: 26

Re: [vegastradguy] Yellow Bluff SCC Screw up. Trespassing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

vegastradguy wrote:
meh, i cant visualize this. i need pictures, topos, something to help me grasp what the beef is.

The beef seems to be that an older lady owns the land on top of the cliff and, as alluded to, seems to have pitched a bit of hissy fit. They're initial gripe was that they were appalled that the SCC didn't ask permission to climb, but just started climbing. Well, the SCC bought the land at the bottom and after a great deal of due diligence were assured by the lawyers that the property at the top ended at the top of cliff and that climbers owned the cliff and could climb on the rock and would not be trespassing as long as they did not top out. Why on earth, if you believed in good faith that it is your land, would you ask your neighbor for permission to do what you want on your land? Even doing so could throw doubt on the legitimacy of your property rights.

Their initial position was they 'owned' the cliff, but that seems to have been abandoned, I assume because this, at least, has been demonstrated to not be the case. Now the dispute has shifted to vertical property rights. I don't know how much people know here about southern sandstone, but it typically forms large flat roofs as the strata are mostly horizontal, with softer layers (and I use the word 'softer' relatively. This ain't your desert sandstone, it is typically bullet hard. I've drilled bolts by hand in sandstone and NC granite, and it's harder to drill the sandstone) having eroded more than the harder strata. Thus the lower edge may be twenty or thirty feet undercut from the top. This is especially true at Yellow Bluff. So now the claim is that they own vertically down, and that therefore everything inside that line is theirs. But, as someone has pointed out earlier, how does that square with the SCC owning the land at the bottom? To complicate things more--and I am not affiliated with the SCC, nor am I privy to the ins and outs of this dispute, so there is a fair amount of speculation on this point--I think from some of what I have read, and knowing the players, that the SCC deed probably refers to their property ending at the property line, i.e. the top edge of the cliff as specified in both deeds, meaning that the SCC would own the cliff, and that it is not just neutral ground.

Probably this is a situation simply not anticipated under AL law, where the cliff would be assumed for legal purposes to be vertical. Absent a compelling reason, such as valuable mineral rights or potential damage that might threaten the owner's land at the top, it's hard to imagine that a court would recognize their claim over the common sense claim of the SCC.

My reading is that we have an older lady who always assumed the cliff was hers and got her dander up, and that the son, who is the point of contact, probably, is caught in the middle. Maybe there is, or was, a way to mollify her by making sweet, but let's not forget that the cliff was closed to climbers originally in the late '80s because the lycra crowd acted like a bunch of asses and pissed everyone off. Plus, once the dispute was dropped in the SCC's lap, the lawyers would have insisted on a firm assertion of property rights.


tradpuppy


Sep 21, 2009, 8:12 AM
Post #18 of 24 (4297 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 15, 2002
Posts: 722

Re: [D.BCooper] Yellow Bluff SCC Screw up. Trespassing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Why the hell would anyone involved in a legal dispute post all the intimate details on a public forum? Anyone with a brain cell X2 would be keeping these matters to themselves until the dispute was resolved by their lawyers. This leads me to believe this is all an elaborate fallacy (cointelpro, perhaps?) designed to create complications.


clemsonscooby


Sep 21, 2009, 1:09 PM
Post #19 of 24 (4268 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 21, 2006
Posts: 190

Re: [tradpuppy] Yellow Bluff SCC Screw up. Trespassing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

This vertical property line thing makes me wonder what is on the other hemisphere that I could possibly own. Some Chinese person's shack, maybe a palace? It is funny that this guy posted on here expecting someone to care that SCC deleted. I saw the original thread and the SCC was being smart about it, letting the lawyers resolve the issue, unlike this guy. Your also talking about a handful of climbers that can actually climb at those grades. Its not like this place is going to blow up like the Gunks. I can't imagine noise being an issue, especially when overhangs will block the sounds of all the loud clipping, grunting, and yelling of "take". As far as trying to get sympathy for money lost, the SCC has done so much for climbing in the SE that I won't shed a tear.


(This post was edited by clemsonscooby on Sep 21, 2009, 1:54 PM)


eepirate


Sep 21, 2009, 6:03 PM
Post #20 of 24 (4244 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 28, 2004
Posts: 4

Re: [D.BCooper] Yellow Bluff SCC Screw up. Trespassing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

In response to the recent posting on this forum, The Southeastern Climbers Coalition would like to let climbers know that we have been in communication with Mr. George on the issue of land boundaries at Yellow Bluff. Due to the alleged issues raised, we have asked Mr. George and others not to post to a public forum (SCC message board) and that this matter be handled directly between the two parties. To date, The SCC has continued to respect the rights of private landowners while maintaining our stance that we own to the top edge of the cliff as our past and current surveys and our deed indicates. This boundary is acknowledged in Mr. George's deed.

We hope that all climbers will continue to allow this issue to be worked out (outside of the internet) and that both parties can work together towards an amicable solution and both be good neighbors.

Thanks for your patience.

The SCC


meeeegan


Sep 27, 2009, 12:55 PM
Post #21 of 24 (4096 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 26, 2005
Posts: 31

Re: [eepirate] Yellow Bluff SCC Screw up. Trespassing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

Access has and always will be a problem in the South. But luckily, thanks to the SCC, we climbers are constantly having crags opened for us and by us.

Sometimes landowners are siked on having us! We will clean-up your land for free! We can pay all your bills! We will buy your land and keep it open to all, not destroy it and build on it!!
But someitmes we get land owners that sound like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNiR5ZTb_MA&feature=related


(This post was edited by meeeegan on Sep 27, 2009, 5:10 PM)


clemsonscooby


Sep 28, 2009, 9:55 AM
Post #22 of 24 (4058 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 21, 2006
Posts: 190

Re: [meeeegan] Yellow Bluff SCC Screw up. Trespassing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

meeeegan wrote:
Access has and always will be a problem in the South. But luckily, thanks to the SCC, we climbers are constantly having crags opened for us and by us.

Sometimes landowners are siked on having us! We will clean-up your land for free! We can pay all your bills! We will buy your land and keep it open to all, not destroy it and build on it!!
But someitmes we get land owners that sound like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNiR5ZTb_MA&feature=related

Haha, what a fitting video.


KDGuy


Jun 11, 2012, 9:49 PM
Post #23 of 24 (3114 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 11, 2012
Posts: 1

Re: [vegastradguy] Yellow Bluff SCC Screw up. Trespassing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

are we allowed to top off at Yellow Bluff?


montgomerywick


Jun 12, 2012, 3:45 AM
Post #24 of 24 (3103 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 60

Re: [KDGuy] Yellow Bluff SCC Screw up. Trespassing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

No


Forums : Climbing Partners : US - South

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook