You still don't get it, do you? It doesn't matter if it's technically their property or not, they are still responsible for its upkeep, yet you still think it's your "right" to trespass upon it. Obviously I'm not saying if the dog wanders upon it undisturbed (but still, if you see those thorns, why not just avoid it unless they actually go onto the sidewalk or 'real' public areas?), I'm talking about what probably happened, i.e. them taking a piss/crap on & destroying it and hence those measures by the owner(or caretaker of said property). Stop arguing technicalities, which is a sign of not having a good foundation. *I* find it hilarious selfish ppl w/ dogs think they can go anywhere they want. Just leave it alone, you're NOT welcomed and stop being so freaking stubborn. There are PLENTY of *real* public places to use, must you insist upon going somewhere where you're clearly not welcomed? Talk about having thick skin.Karala wrote: ↑Dec 1st, 2017 6:04 pmDown vote what, exactly? The rules of city property and the rules that come attached with ownership of a home to keep it safe?
I'm finding it pretty hilarious that this is likely not their property yet everyoneis talking about entitlement issues of others when it is actually the reverse. The homeowner entitlement to land that is not theirs is actually the issue here.
We own recreational property right beside a main trail -- foot traffic all over the place beside our property as well as loud golf carts blowing dust everywhere. Annoying, sure. But it isn't our property and so the best we can do is build a fence and live and let live.
Bottom line, ppl still don't see the pt, the 'owner' has more claim to the land vs anyone else (save for the city). Why do some ppl insist upon making it harder for them to maintain that piece of property via destructive trepassing, and also thinking they have as much claim to it? Just blind and silly.