White’s Ferry

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rockland getting eviscerated on social. Hopefully they get the message and reverse course. Would be too bad if this was the generation that got greedy and lost the property.

I don't know if we can call them greedy at this point. Surely they want to be paid fairly, and have expenses of their own.

The original landowner - A.T.M. Rust - was compensated $17 for the condemned land in 1871 ($367 in 2019 dollars). This was before the plaintiff's heirs bought the land.

So the ownership claim remained, but the condemned land could be used for only the purposes of the Ferry.

This is really a documentation problem for White's Ferry. There is no authoritative map in the 1871 Condemnation order than pinpoints the condemned land. But the owner of the land at that time clearly knew where the condemned land was located and allowed the ferry depot & road to be built.

In short, the plaintiff's are taking advantage of a lack of conclusive documentation to kick the Ferry off the strip of land (despite the fact that the land cannot be used for anything but the Ferry!)

A quick search online of old maps of Loudoun County show where the original (Conrad’s) ferry crossing was located. It was a few yards upstream from where White’s Ferry is located today.

Can you link to the maps or the website? The 2004 repairs to the retaining wall didn’t move the ferry landing a few yards. If there was movement over the course of 230 years, it happened under the eye of the Rust ancestors.

In my view, the entire debacle about no map of the 1871 Condemnation should be moot. Their ancestor ATM Rust oversaw the road and ferry ramp! I mean, it just didn’t radically move over time. The entire line of argumentation is Kafka’esque.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need a bridge! 15 isn't really conducive to it. 28 would be ideal

See, this aligns with what the Rockland owners want. They don’t want any development on the 15. My guess is that they are trying to get ahead of this issue and by closing the ferry, they force Maryland to the table. Rockland folks know a bridge will eventually come, but they’d rather be on another route far away from their 600 acres

A bridge would never be constructed at the site of White's Ferry; it's too remote. A bridge IS needed further downstream between VA 28 and I-370/MD 200, but Maryland has been blocking it for years complaining that such a bridge would damage the Montgomery Agricultural Preserve. In reality Maryland doesn't want another bridge anywhere across the Potomac because the state's leaders know they would bleed even more jobs/residents to Virginia, as well as see more residents flying out of IAD instead of BWI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need a bridge! 15 isn't really conducive to it. 28 would be ideal

See, this aligns with what the Rockland owners want. They don’t want any development on the 15. My guess is that they are trying to get ahead of this issue and by closing the ferry, they force Maryland to the table. Rockland folks know a bridge will eventually come, but they’d rather be on another route far away from their 600 acres

A bridge would never be constructed at the site of White's Ferry; it's too remote. A bridge IS needed further downstream between VA 28 and I-370/MD 200, but Maryland has been blocking it for years complaining that such a bridge would damage the Montgomery Agricultural Preserve. In reality Maryland doesn't want another bridge anywhere across the Potomac because the state's leaders know they would bleed even more jobs/residents to Virginia, as well as see more residents flying out of IAD instead of BWI.

Nah. BWI is usually The cheapest option unless you are going overseas.

[Anonymous]

It’s a big mistake to draw this much attention to themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know where I can find the evidentiary exhibits referenced in the judge's 31 page decision? I tried pulling up the case in VA court system online tool, but I can't find the actual exhibits. For example, the 1952 agreement is included as an exhibit. I'd be very interested to see the terms of the agreement.

I'd be interested in that, too, if you're able to get it.

It sounds like White's Ferry screwed up by excavating to build the new retaining wall. But the new retaining wall didn't harm the Brown's interest in the property is any meaningful way. The 10ft it expanded into couldn't have been used for any other purpose, and the Historic Rockland venue is almost a mile away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rockland getting eviscerated on social. Hopefully they get the message and reverse course. Would be too bad if this was the generation that got greedy and lost the property.

I don't know if we can call them greedy at this point. Surely they want to be paid fairly, and have expenses of their own.

The original landowner - A.T.M. Rust - was compensated $17 for the condemned land in 1871 ($367 in 2019 dollars). This was before the plaintiff's heirs bought the land.

So the ownership claim remained, but the condemned land could be used for only the purposes of the Ferry.

This is really a documentation problem for White's Ferry. There is no authoritative map in the 1871 Condemnation order than pinpoints the condemned land. But the owner of the land at that time clearly knew where the condemned land was located and allowed the ferry depot & road to be built.

In short, the plaintiff's are taking advantage of a lack of conclusive documentation to kick the Ferry off the strip of land (despite the fact that the land cannot be used for anything but the Ferry!)

A quick search online of old maps of Loudoun County show where the original (Conrad’s) ferry crossing was located. It was a few yards upstream from where White’s Ferry is located today.

Can you link to the maps or the website? The 2004 repairs to the retaining wall didn’t move the ferry landing a few yards. If there was movement over the course of 230 years, it happened under the eye of the Rust ancestors.

In my view, the entire debacle about no map of the 1871 Condemnation should be moot. Their ancestor ATM Rust oversaw the road and ferry ramp! I mean, it just didn’t radically move over time. The entire line of argumentation is Kafka’esque.

Here is the clearest one:

https://www.loc.gov/resource/g3851s.cwh00030/?r=-0.155,-0.037,0.737,0.407,0

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know where I can find the evidentiary exhibits referenced in the judge's 31 page decision? I tried pulling up the case in VA court system online tool, but I can't find the actual exhibits. For example, the 1952 agreement is included as an exhibit. I'd be very interested to see the terms of the agreement.

I'd be interested in that, too, if you're able to get it.

It sounds like White's Ferry screwed up by excavating to build the new retaining wall. But the new retaining wall didn't harm the Brown's interest in the property is any meaningful way. The 10ft it expanded into couldn't have been used for any other purpose, and the Historic Rockland venue is almost a mile away.

From what I read, they had no choice but to put in a new retaining wall, because the old one was damaged from Hurricane Isabel.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone think Rockland will reverse its mind or will the government have to step in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone think Rockland will reverse its mind or will the government have to step in?

The farm tried to negotiate and the Ferry refused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have to wonder if Rockland was built with slave labor?

They rent out the former slaves’ quarters on VRBO

https://www.loc.gov/item/2017892134/
https://t.vrbo.io/wz6k82D1Bcb

The 2nd link doesn’t work.

Yes, it does.

Works for me, and pretty gross to post slave quarters as a country getaway spot. Oh walking distance to wineries! Yay.

https://www.vrbo.com/4656397ha?_branch_match_id=562624256501194873&adultsCount=1&oc=vzcBuFayNlCdRFCxdhRve&utm_campaign=earned%3Avrbo%3Ashare%3AXXX%3AUS%3Aios&utm_content=4656397ha&utm_medium=social&utm_source=direct

People pay $200 a night for that? Its really badly decorated.

[Anonymous]

So is the farm going to go out of business ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone think Rockland will reverse its mind or will the government have to step in?

The farm tried to negotiate and the Ferry refused.

The farm asked for 1/3 of the ferry’s annual net profits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone think Rockland will reverse its mind or will the government have to step in?

The farm tried to negotiate and the Ferry refused.

The farm asked for 1/3 of the ferry’s annual net profits.

That is a bit high but they should get a per car or some kind of rent paid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have to wonder if Rockland was built with slave labor?

They rent out the former slaves’ quarters on VRBO

https://www.loc.gov/item/2017892134/
https://t.vrbo.io/wz6k82D1Bcb

The 2nd link doesn’t work.

Yes, it does.

Works for me, and pretty gross to post slave quarters as a country getaway spot. Oh walking distance to wineries! Yay.

https://www.vrbo.com/4656397ha?_branch_match_id=562624256501194873&adultsCount=1&oc=vzcBuFayNlCdRFCxdhRve&utm_campaign=earned%3Avrbo%3Ashare%3AXXX%3AUS%3Aios&utm_content=4656397ha&utm_medium=social&utm_source=direct

People pay $200 a night for that? Its really badly decorated.

Agree. It looks like a really crappy old hotel.

[Anonymous]

The owners of whites ferry are huge trumpers. I’m glad they e been run out of business.