Reply to White’s Ferry

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "White’s Ferry"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Judges awarded Rockland 100k in damages. I think it's disgusting and I think Rockland is just trying for more money.

Wouldn't, under common law, the ferry have some claim to this land? They've been using it for 230 years. I thought that if you allow someone to continue using your land, they can claim it's theirs. [/quote]

I have no idea of the facts of this case, but claims of adverse possession must meet certain criteria. One of the elements is that the person using the land does so [i]without[/i] the owner's permission.[/quote]

Read the judge's decision.  White's Ferry had been operating under a licensing arrangement since 1952, which essentially just formalized what had been going on for 100+ years. Furthermore, White's Ferry's defence is based on arguing that the landing and approach are in a public right-of-way established in 1871 for the ferry.

In general, White's Ferry has always seemed a little shady to me. So I was predisposed to think they did something shady.  But reading the decision, I don't think that's the case.  Rockland clearly is just using a technicality to rip up of a longstanding agreement that never envisioned rental payments from White's Ferry to the property owners on the Virginia side.

If I'm understanding the case correctly, the 1952 agreement gave White's Ferry permission to operate, but they had to get written permission to build anything (besides maintenance activities).  In 2004, White's Ferry built a new retaining wall on the Virginia side, which is presumably referring to the wall protecting the hairpin turn/ramp at the landing.  Rockland argued that building that retaining wall violated the 1952 agreement, and so they terminated it.

If you look at the location of the retaining wall, it's quite clear that it does not impede Rockland in any way.  It separates the immediate area in front of the landing from the roadway of Route 655, which is at a higher elevation.  It looks like the new retaining wall just created more space for cars to turn while getting on/off the ferry.  But the wall didn't infringe into any land that could plausibly be used for any other productive purpose.

I'm not sure I understand everything in the decision talking about the 1871 condemnation of land.  But the judge seemed to be agree that the order intended to establish a landing at White's Ferry. But, then goes on to say it's not clear that means a landing at the location where White's Ferry was operating. Really? I don't know if that's the right legal decision, but it sounds awfully obtuse.

[/quote]

This is my take, as well. It's a really interesting case.

You can see the layout here: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1555069,-77.5232973,3a,75y,167.45h,73.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZA7_yk6PyD6-lgvrhCqtoA!2e0!7i3328!8i1664

Essentially, Rocklands argues that the state highway ends at the blacktop asphault. The concrete ramp is Rocklands property.

You can see the retaining wall next to the cars. It's holding up the earth so cars can maneuver on the ramp. Rocklands used the re-building of the retaining wall as an excuse to rip up the 1952 agreement, arguing that the retaining wall was in a slightly different location that the original retaining wall.

What's interesting is that if the ferry landing was owned by the state, presumably White's Ferry would pay a lease fee to the state (like any other contractor operating on public lands). Right now, White's Ferry gets the best of both worlds - operates on private and pays no fee to anyone. Eventually, the Ferry will need to fork over money to someone. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics