No trespassing signs on public land

[Guest RP-2444]

Wondering why the Rheinhart Preserve was just posted with no trespassing signs, isn't the property now public land and open to all? I hope the hunters don't plan on hunting there this year either as they have in the past.

[Hunter-q14r]

Well you will learn that the township just spends our dollars to buy up land and then sequesters it "to be farmed ' or used by a select few individuals. If you care to research just see what has been done with Fischer and Forstega properties---there is NO access!!!! so much for the a promise to give the public the use of the property we purchased!

[Land-818s]

The township rarely is the sole contributor toward the purchase of land. Green acres, state, county and even the land owners themselves contribute.

In some cases the town buys land outright and can set it aside for passive recreation. In others they purchase developmental rights only and the farmers retain control and in others the town purchases land and agrees to keep it farmland. After all much of the reason for preserving the land is to maintain farmland.

If the town simply bought land without outside sources they'd have much fewer preserved acreage and our costs in debt much higher.

In the case of Roy's property the town purchased the preserve portion and Roy still retained a piece. Perhaps where you saw the signs was on Roy's property.

[publius-27p1]

We do get to look at it...from a distance.

[GuestRP-2444-2444]

My understanding was that the new parking lot near the woods was put in so we could have access to the forest of the Reinhart Preserve on the north side of the road, the new no trespassing signs are posted on the woods perimeter not on Roy 's farm which is on the south side of the road. Maybe the public works department will know why it's posted.

[anon-6o5s]

The land on the north side of Plainsboro rd the town bought has been leased to hunters. Roy signed a 10 year lease to the men. The way the lease was written the purchase by the town does not void it and they can hunt for the remainder of the lease.

[taxed to the hilt-q14r]

This is just another example of how our "Town Fathers" fail to protect the interest of the taxpayers! So much for Public Access- this was just another example of feeding $$$ to the good Ole Boys.

[anon-97on]

[just a point-8p94]

[quote="anon-97on"]

[anon-818s]

I have no idea whether what someone says is true about hunting or not.

I went there yesterday and only saw Posted placards which is not the same as no trespassing. Posted means no hunting not no entry. Though if people are hunting I don't want to be there.

Let's assume though that this 10 yr contract is correct. Hunting season is a limited time. So only during a portion of the year would people be excluded. I have no idea if that contract is in it's first or 9th year. However, is such a contract cause to not preserve the land, especially when the majority of the cost was not paid by Cranbury.

If it is me and if the contract is true, I'd rather keep it in place then pay a buy out or enter a lawsuit or not do it and have homes.

[thinker-q14r]

There cannot be homes on that parcel[Reinhardt] due to the Wetlands, but we sure should have access to the property we purchased. We don't have access to Forstega[north main street] property or Fischer property[south main street] either because of "leases" initiated by our elected officials.They have squandered our $$$ so we can only LOOK at the parcels we purchased.

[leases okay-8q8s]

yes but if the township is receiving money from the leases, that is good. There is plenty of other land to which people have access. It's nice to have the open space, whether fields or forests, to look at instead of looking at more houses or buildings.

[anon-818s]

I spoke with Mr. Taylor yesterday.

There is no lease for hunting. This would have caused issues with the funding for the land and would have ceased when the town took ownership. The posted signs were put up to stop hunters as the town was made aware from some neighbors that people were hunting and it is illegal to hunt town land. Plus, some hunters apparently came too close to homes.

The signs may say no trespassing, but they are temporary until the no hunting or trapping signs come in. In the meantime people can walk there legally. The reason they did not wait for the other signs was due to the immediate concerns.

He had no idea what agreement Roy may have on the land he still owns.

[anon-0n08]

Typical example of why this forum is so unreliable. Until you posted the facts above it was easy to assume th previous poster mentioning the 10 year hunting license was telling the truth. Misinformation here all the time...

[Trespasser-10pq]

So how can we access the land? I believe Mr. Rienhart still owns the part with street frontage but I am not sure.

[Another Sign Guy-740o]

Question re: public land? Are political signs permitted on public land?
Signs seem to be popping up on park land, median strips and other such land owned by governmental entities.
If there are violations, who enforces the "laws" or "ordinances"?