Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 15:00:28 -0500
From: “Tom Glendinning”
Subject: Kish post “This is how it takes hold in Chatham County”
Some notes on property rights, in Chatham County
In the 1970’s, I rented farmland up the road. The owner wished to properly post the land. We walked the boundary of the 250 acres, posting ‘No Trespassing’ signs at the prescribed interval. It was a nice afternoon endeavor in the woods. Within a month, several of them disappeared. I found a local boy with his supply of beer sitting at the pond with a rifle at dusk. He said, “Oh I didn’t know this was posted. I was just fishing.” A nice vignette of local respect for property rights among some native hunters. I will not say from what town he came, but it was a small one in Chatham.
The same has happened on a two acre parcel which I have owned for forty years. I post a “No Trespassing” sign and it is gone in a week. So I no longer waste the time.
There used to be a posting board at the clerk of court office in the courthouse. It held postings of “No Trespass” for landowners who wished to make their policy clear. Three years ago, I went to the clerk’s office seeking the board to find it has disappeared. When I asked what happened to it, the clerk said it was no longer there. When I asked how I could post my property, she said that I could post it on my property boundaries. When I asked what happened to the board, she mumbled that it had something to do with Raleigh (state government.) I asked her what I could do to get trespassers off my land. She said that I had to send them a registered letter notifying them not to trespass.
Her explanation was not clear, but the message was. I have no rights on my land for which I pay the government taxes to protect those rights.
Now, imagine the conundrum spinning in my mind. I have to detain the trespasser, ask to see his/her/its wallet so that I can send them a registered letter not to trespass. Sounds like a lawyer dreamt that one up. Of course, perfectly reasonable and logical. I’ll just walk up to the trespasser, tell him/her/it is trespassing and ask for legal ID, hoping that the address on that ID is current.
When I read of homeowners protecting themselves from intruders, I get another chill. If the disposition of the body (bodies) is done right, then there is little question that the perp was an intruder. If not, then the homeowner is suspect.
Then, no matter how aggravated the assault, how clear the intrusion was, or how much the law was violated, civil court may take everything one owns because of a law suit from the “vicitm’s” family. I won’t embellish with the statements of defense for the reasons given why the ‘victims’ were trespassing or violating. They seem too trivial to mention.
US Constitution, amendments 2, 4, 5 and 14, section 1 not withstanding, the trespassers have the upper hand in access to your property, either by twist of the law or by negligence of the enforcement agency. The NC constitution has the equivalents in article I, sections 2, 19, 21, 25, 30, and 36, which seem to have the same stated protections in effect. Again, practice may yield another result.
The instruments of protecting private property have diminished in the past decades to favor trespassers, or put into question the rights of the landowner/taxpayer. At this point, all I can do is submit a caution to landowners. I do not know if a constitutional convention is in the future, not would I hold hope that landowner rights would be protected by its product.
A note on Kish’s last post: When I entered academia for my college education, I heard the definition of PhD as “pile it higher and deeper.” That levity injected, I held that most PhD’s were doctors of philosophy, lovers of wisdom with meritorious wallpaper, hard earned in most cases. Displaying only minor wallpaper myself, my views are, of course, suspect and can not hold up to criticism of higher more prestigious people. They can teach us so very much about life, law and living together (per Farmer Dell.)
PS: I find an interesting clause in Article V, section 14 of the NC constitution, Finance:
“…to assess property within the territorial area at a minimum value if agreed to by the owner of the property, which agreed minimum value shall be binding on the current owner and any future owners as long as the defined territorial area is in effect.”
While I am sure that there are subsequent laws and regulations effecting this statement, the basic one is voluntary and places the burden of proof on the local government. Appeals to the Board of Equalization and Review, i.e.. the tax board, place the burden on the taxpayer to prove its case. Now, you may see what I mean by the bureacratic rule or the effect of execution of the law, or lack of it.
I assume that if one taxpayer in the chain of deeds agreed to a value (by acquiescence), all subsequent owners also agreed. That is contrary to the rule that one board of commissioenrs may not bind any subsequent boards by their actions. A contradiction? A class of subjects? I am sure that some attorney can explain the fairness of that rule and how the tax department is right.
I yield to my limit for sarcasm. I can not sustain more without opening a can of nails for a snack.
Tom Glendinning