Author |
Message |
anon-97on |
Posted: Mon, Oct 22 2012, 8:59 am EDT Post subject: Re: No trespassing signs on public land |
|
anon-818s wrote: | When it comes to political signs according to town hall there is no ordinance to remove them from public land. A homeowner or HOA can remove signs if placed on their property. A resident cannot simply remove signs from public land. |
I don't believe you. Another misinformation post here.
Let's make this simple. If you're not making it up, there's an easy way to prove it. Where is the ordinance to place them on public land in the first place? Please cite it. I have not seen it.
Without a law governing the permission to have the signs placed on public land in the first place, no ordinance would be required to remove them because they would already be illegal. So you only need an ordinance for removal if there is one for placement.
I'll give you another example. Why don't we see signs littering all our public parks, the the fire station on prime Main Street land if public land is fair game for anyone wanting to place a sign? |
|
 |
anon-818s |
Posted: Mon, Oct 22 2012, 7:32 am EDT Post subject: Re: No trespassing signs on public land |
|
When it comes to political signs according to town hall there is no ordinance to remove them from public land. A homeowner or HOA can remove signs if placed on their property. A resident cannot simply remove signs from public land. |
|
 |
anon-97on |
Posted: Sun, Oct 21 2012, 10:28 pm EDT Post subject: Re: No trespassing signs on public land |
|
Another Sign Guy-740o wrote: | 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"? |
The most simple solution would be for you to just personally take them down. To do so on private property without consent is illegal but if they are on public land they are in fact already illegal and there would be no basis for them to come after you if you take them down. Someone is probably just taking advantage of hoping no one pays attention or enforces it. |
|
 |
Another Sign Guy-740o |
Posted: Sun, Oct 21 2012, 9:34 pm EDT Post subject: Re: No trespassing signs on public land |
|
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"? |
|
 |
Trespasser-10pq |
Posted: Sun, Oct 21 2012, 4:47 pm EDT Post subject: Re: No trespassing signs on public land |
|
So how can we access the land? I believe Mr. Rienhart still owns the part with street frontage but I am not sure. |
|
 |
anon-0n08 |
Posted: Tue, Oct 2 2012, 10:19 am EDT Post subject: Re: No trespassing signs on public land |
|
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... |
|
 |
anon-818s |
Posted: Tue, Oct 2 2012, 8:11 am EDT Post subject: Re: No trespassing signs on public land |
|
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. |
|
 |
leases okay-8q8s |
Posted: Tue, Oct 2 2012, 6:57 am EDT Post subject: Re: No trespassing signs on public land |
|
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. |
|
 |
thinker-q14r |
Posted: Mon, Oct 1 2012, 11:05 pm EDT Post subject: Re: No trespassing signs on public land |
|
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 $$$ so we can only LOOK at the parcels we purchased. |
|
 |
anon-818s |
Posted: Mon, Oct 1 2012, 7:04 am EDT Post subject: Re: No trespassing signs on public land |
|
I have no idea whether what someone says is true about hunting or not.
I went there yesterday and only saw Posted placards which is not the same as no trespassing. Posted means no hunting not no entry. Though if people are hunting I don't want to be there.
Let's assume though that this 10 yr contract is correct. Hunting season is a limited time. So only during a portion of the year would people be excluded. I have no idea if that contract is in it's first or 9th year. However, is such a contract cause to not preserve the land, especially when the majority of the cost was not paid by Cranbury.
If it is me and if the contract is true, I'd rather keep it in place then pay a buy out or enter a lawsuit or not do it and have homes. |
|
 |
just a point-8p94 |
Posted: Sun, Sep 30 2012, 11:25 pm EDT Post subject: Re: No trespassing signs on public land |
|
[quote="anon-97on"] taxed to the hilt-q14r wrote: | This is just another example of how our "Town Fathers" fail to protect the interest of the taxpayers! So much for Public Access- this was just another example of feeding $$$ to the good Ole Boys. |
Wouldn't the title "Town Fathers" describe people who lived over 300 years ago? I don't see the connection between them whatever you are implying. And who exactly are the "Good Ole Boys"?[/quote
Just a personal pet peeve. The term "Good ole boys" is increasingly used incorrectly. A "good ole boy" came into popular use in the Waylon Jennings song. It refers to rednecks who enjoy drinking and driving fast cars. The "Old Boy network" is a reference to to a financial and political elite who made there important social connections at traditional east coast boarding schools. The term comes from once they leave boarding school they are referred to as old boys.
So if you are referring to people in control who don't allow any outsiders into a ruling elite you are referring to the "Old Boys". |
|
 |
anon-97on |
Posted: Sun, Sep 30 2012, 10:42 pm EDT Post subject: Re: No trespassing signs on public land |
|
taxed to the hilt-q14r wrote: | 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 $$$ to the good Ole Boys. |
Wouldn't the title "Town Fathers" describe people who lived over 300 years ago? I don't see the connection between them whatever you are implying. And who exactly are the "Good Ole Boys"? |
|
 |
taxed to the hilt-q14r |
Posted: Sun, Sep 30 2012, 8:40 pm EDT Post subject: Re: No trespassing signs on public land |
|
This is just another example of how our "Town Fathers" fail to protect the interest of the taxpayers! So much for Public Access- this was just another example of feeding $$$ to the good Ole Boys. |
|
 |
anon-6o5s |
Posted: Sun, Sep 30 2012, 6:38 pm EDT Post subject: Re: No trespassing signs on public land |
|
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. |
|
 |
GuestRP-2444-2444 |
Posted: Fri, Sep 21 2012, 1:29 pm EDT Post subject: Re: No trespassing signs on public land |
|
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. |
|
 |
publius-27p1 |
Posted: Sun, Sep 9 2012, 10:42 am EDT Post subject: Re: No trespassing signs on public land |
|
We do get to look at it...from a distance. |
|
 |