Trouble near Boulder, Jeepers trying to claim private road Options

[Coalbunny]

Exactly 59er. They should have had it documented better. Those things happen even today and they don't document it. Sometimes because even they question the validity of the agreement. Others because it seems so incrimental to just not be worth it.

Jerry, I will have to get some stuff copied and send to you. It tells of a county's fight regarding the RS2477. Even if it's a paved county road, the feds can and have stolen it and closed it off with ZERO justification.

[plp.001]

I know that San Bernardino County and several other So. Cslif have asseted their RS 2477 rights in the last 3 years. and I believe that Utah and Colorado have recently asserted their right as well.

Jerry

[59er]

I'd be interested in knowing if any of these assertions cross private property. If they do, I wonder if the county just records a road on the deed or if they notify (or negotiate) with the owner. It would be a shock to pull your deed and find a 60-foot exception where you thought you had a private drive.

I wonder what happens when some college kid kills himself flipping his rock crawler while trying to hill-climb up your mine tailings. Who is held liable when his parent's try to sue? Does the county turn around and say "we own the right of way but you are liable for maintenence and accidents by stupid people"?

Maybe I'm just old fashioned but I worry about these sorts of things in these modern times when there's no common sense or responsibility.

[wheasonjr]

Hi 59er
On many patented properties for mining there will be a clause in them which allows for a right away to access to rivers on the property (other than for mining) and right away for passage through. This would be in the original signed patent. In the case of a patented property the route may be up to the owner if it is a reasonable route.

[russau]

my x-father-in-law had two acres of property(2 side-by-side lots) with a house in the middle. he built a two car garge on it and was getting ready to pour the concret floor when the county called him at home and said that he cant have his garge there "cause someone was going to drive into it and get hurt" they told him that there was a 1800s propsed road that was listed there and that he had 1 month to remove the garage or be in court! he tried to explain that there isnt a road there and that he owns both lots. but they said no-no!! he even offered the land on the othere side of the lot and they said no, they didnt want a turn in the road. he said there isnt a road there! they wouldnt even come out and look at it! he tore down the garage! this was before the missouri disclosure law where the seller needs to show all known defects or property problems. what a hard way to learn.

[plp.001]

Russ and all

RS 2477 Rights of way do not have to be maintained and often, after no use they become overgrown and are not visible but they still remain

Jerry

[59er]

I don't think that this is an RS 2477 right of way. I have never heard of successful lawsuit that took an RS 2477 right of way out of private property. I am aware of several attempts, but they are always fail.

[59er]

Looks like this is a done deal. I guess there wasn't any real evidence that this was a public road after all.

Publish Date: 7/16/2006

Forest access limited
Gates lead officials to cancel thinning plans

By Brad Turner
The Daily Times-Call

JAMESTOWN — U.S. Forest Service officials have canceled plans to thin 350 acres of trees south of town after a mining company and a resident installed three gates to block access to the area.

Hikers, mountain bikers and snowshoers will still have access to the area, known as Gillespie Gulch, but motorized traffic can’t access Forest Service Road 331, which links Jamestown to thousands of acres of national forest.

After spending $30,000 to grade the road in preparation for the forest-thinning project, Forest Service administrators canceled the plans in late June after a resident built a gate on a spot where the road crosses private property, Boulder District ranger Christine Walsh said.

“This is very disappointing,” Walsh said. “We’re just not going up there.”

The Forest Service, along with the Boulder County Sheriff’s Office and several area fire districts, will have keys to unlock the gates on Gillespie Gulch during emergencies. But the thinning project cannot move forward because the Forest Service cannot order contractors to pass through barricades onto private property, even if they have a key to the gate, Walsh said.

The 3,800-acre Overland Fire torched a dozen homes on the north side of Jamestown in 2003.

In May, a representative for Merendon Mining said the company planned to build two gates across the road near the Black Rose Mine. Vandals have caused thousands of dollars in damage to equipment at the gold mine over the past two decades, mining geologist Harald Hoegberg said.

The barricades at the mine would have left about a mile of the popular off-roading route open to vehicles. But a private property owner built a third gate at the bottom of the hill, blocking the road entirely, Walsh said.

A Jamestown resident who lives near the new gate, speaking anonymously, said residents have endured years of off-roaders driving and riding by their homes. While most of them were respectful, a handful revved their engines and even urinated on private property, the resident said.

Boulder resident Jason Sweger said he was disappointed to find the road blocked off recently after camping in the area for the past 13 years.

Sweger said he and his friends always tried to do minimal harm when camping in the forest, but acknowledged he had seen a few cases of destructive off-roading and reckless shooting over the years.

“I know it only takes a few people to ruin it for everybody,” he said. “I guess that’s what happened here.”

The gate at Black Rose will dramatically reduce the number of motorists in the forest between Jamestown and Left Hand Canyon Drive, Walsh said recently.

Boulder County commissioners shut down County Road 102J, which linked Jamestown to Gold Lake, in 1999, after town residents complained that erosion from the dirt road contaminated their drinking water.

With Gillespie Gulch blocked, the only remaining access point to the forest south of Jamestown is a trail off Left Hand Canyon Drive that is too steep and difficult for most vehicles.

Brad Turner can be reached at 720-494-5420, or by e-mail at bturner@times-call.com.

[Gotgold]

I joined the forum this morning, this topic regarding 'access', is an ever-present issue/topic not only here but on other forums as well.

I've been lurking in the backround for way to long. How does that old saying go, try it before ya buy it.

I posted to a thread on NuggerShooter regarding this access issue this morning, it gets pretty passionate in many ways, and a lot of very different opinions are stated depending on circumstance, ....I'll just say, it's still open for discussion.

Here's a link back to what these people were talking about with respect to 'Public Land Access'.

http://www.nuggetshooter.ipbhost.com/index...?showtopic=7242

I'm not pushing someone elses forum, I'm just pointing out that others share the same interest!

Gary

[rehab]

if the man owns the property (as in patented mining claim, w/parcel number, and pays taxes, he has the right to close any roads on his property, PROVIDED he solicits the local county commission for approval and obtains it first.

He may have to build an easement on his property lines to allow access to areas beyond his property.

If his deal is just a mining claim on fed land, he has no rights whatsoever to control or close access roads on his claim, nor even to place a cable across the road to protect his equipment (blm code).

[rehab]

with the 59er story, I think the guy would have to ponder how much he would lose should someone's house up the hill, and past his gate, were to burn down and he end up in civil court with a liability lawsuit or more.

The fact the forest service would be up there using tax money for the public good would relieve them of any civil or criminal liability were they blocked access.

The way I see it, the gate owners' best bet would be to allow access to proeprty owners and the feds, and screen all others, perhaps with a fee for use and access, on a yearly basis. Certainly all the residents up the hill would have a key

[Goldshark]

When patented mining claims transfer from public to private ownership, they are granted with reservations. These reservations usually state what does , and does not come with the transfer. One of the biggest is the one stating that each State shall have the ability to dictate the rules pertaining to it's conduct. The rules as applied from the State, in this instance Colorado, can be found in the Colorado Revised Statutes, section 34, titled MINERALS. Under CRS 34-48-104, it states "Every miner has the right of way across any and all claims, for the purpose of hauling Quartz". This was adopted by law after a case based in Leadville. If this was not a law, a mining claim staked perpendicular to a valley length, would effectively give that claim owner complete control over the entire valley access. In mining law, you do not need to pay to cross ANY patented or unpatented claim, if it pertains to mining. Can you imagine what would happen if during the war, everybody was involved in court cases, hampering our ability to mine for any metal, because some claim owner said that you can't cross his property. They definitely do not know the laws.
If you want access to a residence, that is a whole different process, usually involving a surveyed easement. The reason for a right of way vs an easement, is that a right of way can be moved, an easement is a surveyed designated alignment, which cannot be relocated, unless a lot of work is done to change it. An ROW can simply be moved a little or a lot, but cannot be denied, This is so that if mineral is found under the existing ROW, it can be mined in a way as to not incur a huge burden on the claim owner, and still provide access to other mines. I know of one instance where a belligerent claim owner is doing everything in his power to contest the ROW. Mainly because the ground beyond is very good, and his simple greed is causing a huge rift amongst him and the property owners beyond. It is really sad that some people are never content with a very good life, just wanting more, more, more. Anyway, it is people like that, that made our legislature conjure laws to combat his kind.