by Professor » Fri Apr 11, 2014 9:26 am
I don't think I agree with either side here.
I equate this to a public park with a single tire swing. Lots of kids playing around. If many kids want to swing on the tire and are fighting over it, then I agree that the municipal authority has a right and obligation to come in and say, "Here are the rules for using the swing" or even just taking it down because it's creating conflict.
But, what if only 1 kid is swinging on the tire, and no one else is using it? Should the municipality come in and say, "Hey, that's not yours. Stop swinging on it!"
(Yes, I realize that the swing is "meant" for kids, whereas the grass may not be meant for his cows. But, what if that public park used to be land belonging to another person, and the govt took it and simply never took down the swing?)
Basically, so long as his cows are not impeding any public function of the land (invading state parks, polluting waterways, etc.), and as long as no one else is wanting to use the land, then why shouldn't he be allowed to use it?
- These users thanked the author Professor for the post:
- eynon81