Sunday, April 03, 2005
I'd sort of had it in the back of my mind to drive out to the Ridge this weekend to see what the parking situation is. The fact the driving conditions were just about as bad as they have been all winter made this a stupid idea, and therefore irresistible.
What I found was a very intimidating sign that includes, inter alia, "no trespassing", "trespassers will be prosecuted", and "use at your own risk". I also found that the ramp accessing the park had evidently been plowed within the last 24 hours-- probably less, it seemed to me to be in better condition than the highway. At the top of the ramp, where the roadway crosses over the highway, at the entrance to the casino parking lot, there is a barricade (with another sign) that has room on either side for vehicles to pass. There were tracks going in and out, but the conditions were such that I thought it better not to proceed.
So it is accessible. I'm not sure what that means-- I wouldn't run there next week, since it is sure to be a mess, but what about Post No Bill's" cousin, "Trespasser's Will"? In Kelly v. Buffalo Bills Football Club, Inc. 171 Misc.2d 693, 655 N.Y.S.2d 275 (Erie County Sup Ct 1997), the case about the vendors outside of Rich Stadium, Justice Glownia held that neither the County nor the County's lessee could prohibit commercial activity on the County's property absent a showing that the contemplated regulation was " reasonably calculated to achieve the valid public purposes of maintaining its busiest streets as free as possible from congestion and of preserving them for their primary purpose of public travel." So we could probably sell stuff....
I hate Westlaw, by the way. I know I could find the answer faster using books, but wouldn't you love to know what Cambria v. Erie County Parks v. Lipsitz, Green, Fahringer, Roll, Salisbury & Cambria was about? What do you bet that it wasn't an office picnic gone terribly wrong?
I'm going to spend a little more time on this, but I am beginning to think that a trespass prosecution might not stand up. It looks like reasonable restrictions on the use of public lands are fine, but I think an outright ban such as this could be unconstitutional.
What I found was a very intimidating sign that includes, inter alia, "no trespassing", "trespassers will be prosecuted", and "use at your own risk". I also found that the ramp accessing the park had evidently been plowed within the last 24 hours-- probably less, it seemed to me to be in better condition than the highway. At the top of the ramp, where the roadway crosses over the highway, at the entrance to the casino parking lot, there is a barricade (with another sign) that has room on either side for vehicles to pass. There were tracks going in and out, but the conditions were such that I thought it better not to proceed.
So it is accessible. I'm not sure what that means-- I wouldn't run there next week, since it is sure to be a mess, but what about Post No Bill's" cousin, "Trespasser's Will"? In Kelly v. Buffalo Bills Football Club, Inc. 171 Misc.2d 693, 655 N.Y.S.2d 275 (Erie County Sup Ct 1997), the case about the vendors outside of Rich Stadium, Justice Glownia held that neither the County nor the County's lessee could prohibit commercial activity on the County's property absent a showing that the contemplated regulation was " reasonably calculated to achieve the valid public purposes of maintaining its busiest streets as free as possible from congestion and of preserving them for their primary purpose of public travel." So we could probably sell stuff....
I hate Westlaw, by the way. I know I could find the answer faster using books, but wouldn't you love to know what Cambria v. Erie County Parks v. Lipsitz, Green, Fahringer, Roll, Salisbury & Cambria was about? What do you bet that it wasn't an office picnic gone terribly wrong?
I'm going to spend a little more time on this, but I am beginning to think that a trespass prosecution might not stand up. It looks like reasonable restrictions on the use of public lands are fine, but I think an outright ban such as this could be unconstitutional.
