Yes, being hostile and combative is not the way, however having no presence is likely not the way either. If 50 people show up in support it sends a message but if no one shows up the town will think no one cares. One can argue both sides.I agree being antagonistic is a bad strategy. Hope for the best.
the more I think about it the more this feedback makes sense. based on the information the town was formally required to designate the trail closed due to the restricted use requirement in the deed.I don't think we want this and the current "soft" message may be by design. The deed requires the municipality to state the trails are closed. They have. If they chose not to enforce it, it might be to our benefit.
The trespassing statute requires that the offender "knowingly and purposely" disregard posted NO TRESPASSING signage or hop a fence or remain in a structure after it is closed. Right now there is plausable deniability. That's a good thing.
Unless the town passes a specific ordinance against MTBing at Nassau or until you have a cop ID you and make a record that you have been notified and warned of the trespassing, you're good. And maybe the borough attorney advised the town to leave it vague. Lest they have a shitshow on their hands.
I'm not an attorney but I did pass by a Motel 6 last night. LET SLEEPING DOGS LIE. Don't show up at the council meeting and demand a response. You'll force their hand. Slow play this.
or.. we can eliminate the New Jersey Office of Natural Resource Restoration.Try this:
Linky
Specifically from page 4
View attachment 213326
How did MTB get lumped in with gas powered vehicles?
I'm sure that closing this disconnect, with regards to the surrounding area, is being considered.
Try this:
Linky
Specifically from page 4
View attachment 213326
How did MTB get lumped in with gas powered vehicles?
I'm sure that closing this disconnect, with regards to the surrounding area, is being considered.
Mine identifies as a road bike so I should be covered too under this approach LOLGood thing my MTB identifies as a pack mule.
As I understand it, either the town never knew about the deed restrictions (this is likely) or the change of use agreement was never completed. This was brought up by a neigh or in 2019 and came to a head in 2020 when the state was notified.Surely when Jeff and others built these trails way back when there was some form of permission and authorization granted by whomever is/was the land steward, no? If so can that be cited as evidence that this activity was approved by the appropriate powers that be. The way I see it, the land steward approved the trial building for the purposes of multi use, volunteers stepped up to build what are now essentially assets on the land, and now these assets are not available for the very use for which they were created and for the very people that created them. Doesn’t add up. Do we have the original paperwork and other artifacts that governed approval of the trail construction?
The gap between 2019 and 2023 fails to mention what steps were/weren't taken to do just that.Seems like the only option is to petition the New Jersey Office of Natural Resource Restoration to remove the restriction. Seems like a long shot but worth a try.