Now This Should Generate Some Interesting Debate/Conversation

[bigscoop]

Corruption? Theft? Fair & Square? You decide.

So here's the background to this situation, the city at one time having dedicated several city parks that were supported by tax dollars. You all know how this basically works but the short of it that the city dedicated certain partials of municipal lands to the development of public parks, these parks then supported by tax revenues and other sources of city incomes. In short-short, these parks belong to the city but are funded by the people. At least that's the general “perception/format.”

This morning I traveled to one of these a local city parks to do a bit of detecting, this park generally being fairly clean, quiet, and only lightly used, and one might also say that it is in an upscale portion of town when compared to most of our city parks. And so here we go....

I had just recovered my first ring, a small sterling ring with a broken shank, not a bad start. About five minutes later I'm approached by and older gentleman in a suit, nice guy, very polite and genial, and after some basic chitchat he informed me that the park was no longer owned by the city and that it now required written permission to detect, which as he pointed out, wasn't very likely. Why? Because he was the guy who decided that and he metal detected too. But this isn't the core of the story, hardly.

As it turns out the city, due to lack of funding, or so they say, just up and “gave” this large partial of ground to....and here it comes.....”the church”....to which the gentleman in front of me was the pastor. That's right, several acres of good city ground simply given to the church, no effort at all to try to sell it in order to recover funds that could be used somewhere else, say to up grade another existing city park somewhere, which, ironically, they are currently doing at at-least two different locations that I know of.

Now here's a bit more on this ground, about seven acres, the neighborhood is well manicured, the property is bordered by some very nice church grounds on one side and the location is convenient. I'm sure it could have brought a fair price and some noticeable additional revenues for the city. But they just up and, “give it away?” Yep, it's all true.

So what do you think? Should this be allowed? A city “grounds” that was accessible to the public “quietly” given away to a non-profit that now restricts public access. Just seems like something is broken and twisted here?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tom_in_CA]

Ok, then how about this : send someone else to the church ( or by email or phone call), asking them:

"Hi. I understand you now own the park, yet it still open to public usage. Can you please direct me to where I can find a list of the park rules?"

Then look over the list to see if, in fact, there is any rule that says no metal detecting. If not, then there's your answer.

That's not to say that someone in Authority can't come up an arbitrarily decide otherwise. But so too can the same be said for any park in the entire USA. Then it would boil down to a matter of whether an individual bumps into a single lone kill-joy or not, eh?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[bigscoop]

Ok, then how about this : send someone else to the church ( or by email or phone call), asking them:

"Hi. I understand you now own the park, yet it still open to public usage. Can you please direct me to where I can find a list of the park rules?"

Then look over the list to see if, in fact, there is any rule that says no metal detecting. If not, then there's your answer.

That's not to say that someone in Authority can't come up an arbitrarily decide otherwise. But so too can the same be said for any park in the entire USA. Then it would boil down to a matter of whether an individual bumps into a single lone kill-joy or not, eh?

Tom, buddy, read through the post, the church has already made clear what their policies are, having politely done so on that very first day. Why continue to try to find ways around these policies set by these authorities? Their rules are set, been made clear, why continue to try find ways of sneaking around in the dark and shadows to get around them? There's no detecting. No public access with written permission, etc. They own it, they set policy, just as you own your own backyard and set policy for that back yard. Respect it. Why is this concept so hard for you to accept?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... has already made clear what their policies are, ...

Assuming there's no rule that says "no metal detecting", then yes: Someone in authority coming up to whimsically tell you "scram", does in fact constitute a "rule" now. Right ? Because you're right, they have that authority to arbitrarily decide EVEN though it's not necessarily written down somewhere, eh ?

The do tell me: The same would also apply then, to any park any where. Right ? So if someone comes up and tells someone "you can't do that", it now constitutes law and rule for all other md'rs to come. Right ? NOT just the single person being told "scram", right ? So for example, if someone else goes to that exact same park and never happens to run into that man, then the next md'r (once told of your "scram") is now lawless and "sneaking" , right ? Even though perhaps he looked up the rules and saw nothing that said "no md'ing". Because bigscoop's "scram" constitutes a rule, right ?

If so, then what does a person do in the example I will give in the next:

 

[Tom_in_CA]

There's a park , about 2 hrs. from me, that I like to hit whenever I'm passing through that part of the state. It's been worked since the late 1970s, and used to give up a lot of barbers and such. One time, in the late 1990s, a buddy and I were working it. A lady cop came up and told us we can't be doing that. We were just about to leave anyhow, so we gave lip service and left.

Ok, so far I would agree with you that "we know better". And you certainly can't "defy a cop's say-so". After all, they are duly appointed by the city, and can indeed lay-down policy (the interpretation of "deface" and so forth). EVEN in the absence of specific prohibition. So we'd agree, right ? Just like in your case, there need-not-be a specific rule, since that preacher (just like this cop) has the authority.

Shortly thereafter, I began to correspond with a hunter in that city via email. I told him of our encounter. He was shocked, since he hunts that park all the time and had never heard so much as "boo". And since his wife had family member that worked in city hall (was a council man or something), he was going to "look into this" and "get this clarified". But I told him that perhaps he'd better not, lest he open up a can of worms. So this friend decided to do nothing about it.

Naturally however, you can BET he was a little ... uh ... wondering/worried on his following hunts there. But nothing ever happened. As always, no one ever said anything to him. And eventually, he forgot about it. He, and others, continue to hunt there.

Ok. So it only a law for ME now ? Or is it a "law" for all others (once I appraise them of my booting) ? Is my friend somehow a lawless "sneak" ?

 

[bigscoop]

Tom, listen to yourself. These folks from the church, "were the policy makers." Why then, after due-diligence has confirmed their ownership, continue to try to find a way of sneaking around their policies instead of giving them the respect they deserve, the same respect you would demand and expect if the situation was reversed? Have you total disregard for all manner of authority and laws and the rights of other people when these things stand in your way of being able to do whatever you desire to do? If so then I can only pray that you lay aside your detector and take up puzzles. I'll personally buy you the first one.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

big-scoop ,

1) I'm not disagreeing with the edict you were appraised of.

2) I'm not disagreeing with their authority to have done that "scram"

3) I'm not disagreeing with you that it need-not-be on a list-of-rules. Anyone in authority can-indeed come by and say that you or I are bothering earthworms, "cutting" or "defacing".

4) I'm not disagreeing that you should not sneak around behind his back , in order to be in full compliance with #'s 1 to 3 above. Sure, *technically* that would be violating a policy, which, yes, you are now appraised of.

Yes I know I advocated "just go when that single lookie-lou isn't around to gripe", but I'll now retract , for purposes of this exact set of ingredients.

HOWEVER, I just can't help but wonder: What would you think if ... a year from now, you find out some other Joe Blow in your town (who perhaps had looked it up, and seen no rules forbidding md'ing) had gone un-bothered all year long ? Because perhaps he didn't happen to run into the same fellow. And let's say you found out the other guy has been scoring seateds and barbers all this time.

Ok: Is that other fellow lawless ? If you inform him of your booting, is he now obligated to stay home ? I have actually seen this happen, where , sure, someone who's "been warned" is not going to go against that. After all: What if the same gardener or cop or meter maid saw him again ? Yet later he sees that others go and never heard so much as "boo".

So I ask you again: What about the next guy ? Does he go by the rules he can look up for park usage ? Does your "scram" constitute a rule for others ?

 

[Honest Samuel]

You should check with the city hall to find out if the city still own the land. Good hunting and good luck.

 

[bigscoop]

big-scoop ,

1) I'm not disagreeing with the edict you were appraised of.

2) I'm not disagreeing with their authority to have done that "scram"

3) I'm not disagreeing with you that it need-not-be on a list-of-rules. Anyone in authority can-indeed come by and say that you or I are bothering earthworms, "cutting" or "defacing".

4) I'm not disagreeing that you should not sneak around behind his back , in order to be in full compliance with #'s 1 to 3 above. Sure, *technically* that would be violating a policy, which, yes, you are now appraised of.

Yes I know I advocated "just go when that single lookie-lou isn't around to gripe", but I'll now retract , for purposes of this exact set of ingredients.

HOWEVER, I just can't help but wonder: What would you think if ... a year from now, you find out some other Joe Blow in your town (who perhaps had looked it up, and seen no rules forbidding md'ing) had gone un-bothered all year long ? Because perhaps he didn't happen to run into the same fellow. And let's say you found out the other guy has been scoring seateds and barbers all this time.

Ok: Is that other fellow lawless ? If you inform him of your booting, is he now obligated to stay home ? I have actually seen this happen, where , sure, someone who's "been warned" is not going to go against that. After all: What if the same gardener or cop or meter maid saw him again ? Yet later he sees that others go and never heard so much as "boo".

So I ask you again: What about the next guy ? Does he go by the rules he can look up for park usage ? Does your "scram" constitute a rule for others ?

Tom, again, listen to yourself. Is what others do a factor? Seems now you're trying to excuse your lack of respect of rules & laws based on the argument/speculation that some other Joe with the same lack of respect might do it anyway. Why should some other "convenient imaginary hypothetical guy" have any degree of influence on the level of respect that I show & share? And PS: nobody told me to "scram"....they very politely explained the situation to me, politely requested that I leave. You keep trying to paint this as a "big bad bossy and grumpy authority figure." Where's all of this come from, Tom?

 

[cudamark]

At this point, I would verify that the person who told you they were in charge of making the rules for that park, truly IS in charge of that. I would also look into that land give-away to see if it was legal. If they check out, you're looking at getting a new place to detect or making that guy your best buddy!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

...Why should some other "convenient imaginary hypothetical guy" have any degree of influence on the level of respect that I show & share?...

It doesn't. I've already said "go ahead and stay home".

 

[bigscoop]

It doesn't. I've already said "go ahead and stay home".

Nha....why stay home? I'll just respect landowner rights and move on to other places where it's allowed/permitted.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

...move on to other places where it's allowed/permitted.

There is no place where it's "allowed and permitted". It merely means that you haven't run into the right person at those other places. I'll bet that no matter what park you hunt at, of any entity, that I could find someone who doesn't like it. And finds some law or rule they believe that you're running afoul of.

All I would have to do is go into city or county hall and say "Gee, is it really right for bigscoop to be digging up the park like that ? What if a little girl trips and falls in a hole and sues the city ?". Or "gee is it really right for bigscoop to be removing park features and cultural artifacts for his own profit at public expense like that ?". etc....

You're definitely right that you're in a pickle at the church-run park now. But on the other hand, just be aware: 99% of park hunting just depends on who you bump into. Not "whether it's allowed or not".

 

[bill from lachine]

bigscoop,

Just my 2 cents for what it's worth but considering this was a serious chunk of land with a lot of cash value involved at the very least it should have a least gone to a vote by the city councilors if not a referendum by the tax payers.....if I was a resident there'd be hell to pay.....

Regards + HH

Bill

 

[bigscoop]

Tom.........there are "lot's of places where detecting is allowed/permitted." This is true on various state levels, municipal levels, private levels, etc. But, you do have to do your due-diligence in order to discover these things. Perhaps the issue here is that you're just not aware that it is allowed/permitted in all of these various places? You should take the time to check these things out first.

 

[bigscoop]

bigscoop,

Just my 2 cents for what it's worth but considering this was a serious chunk of land with a lot of cash value involved at the very least it should have a least gone to a vote by the city councilors if not a referendum by the tax payers.....if I was a resident there'd be hell to pay.....

Regards + HH

Bill

To what avail would such a pursuit serve? This deal isn't in progress as it has already been long finalized. Sure, the pot could be stirred a little, perhaps, but to what avail? I'm certainly not going to endure the stress and financial burden over this particular "community" concern. However, I might do some more snooping and put the bug in a few ears but that's about it. Really all I can do.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Tom.........there are "lot's of places where detecting is allowed/permitted." This is true on various state levels, municipal levels, private levels, etc. But, you do have to do your due-diligence in order to discover these things. Perhaps the issue here is that you're just not aware that it is allowed/permitted in all of these various places? You should take the time to check these things out first.

If you mean some spots that dreamed up "permits", then yes, you're right. There *are* places with "Express allowances".

But what about places that are simply silent on the issue ? Neither expressly allowing, nor expressly forbidding ? If you have any places like that, where perhaps you and others have always-ever gone and never had a problem, I bet I can find someone who'll take issue with it. You just have to ask the right person in the right way of wording. Or run into the right person on the right (or should I say wrong) day.

 

[bigscoop]

If you mean some spots that dreamed up "permits", then yes, you're right. There *are* places with "Express allowances".

But what about places that are simply silent on the issue ? Neither expressly allowing, nor expressly forbidding ? If you have any places like that, where perhaps you and others have always-ever gone and never had a problem, I bet I can find someone who'll take issue with it. You just have to ask the right person in the right way of wording. Or run into the right person on the right (or should I say wrong) day.

....no Tom, there are many places that allow metal detecting without permit. There are also "Many-many" laws, far too many, that can also come into play which can actually effect/shift jurisdiction. I have encountered these in municipalities, counties, and even at the state levels. In many cases it really all comes down to who, exactly, has legal oversight, a great deal of the time even those who are suppose to know don't truly know. And then there are some places that even invite such activities, a couple of my local state properties serving prime example as the permitting of this activity is solely up to each property manager, "Period!" Some do allow it, others don't. Some municipals allow it, others don't. Some counties allow it, some don't. Some departments allow it, others don't, etc., etc. So NO, it isn't restricted everywhere, not even close.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... there are many places that allow metal detecting without permit.

But is it stated somewhere, in print (like in the park rules or city laws) : "Metal detecting allowed here" ? Or you saying it's "allowed", because it's silent on the subject ? (ie.: no rule forbidding).

I think a lot of the places we md'rs agree is "allowed", is often time simply because you/I haven't run into the wrong person before (like you did in this particular unfortunate OP). There will always be someone in a hierarchy/bureaucracy that .... asked in the right way, or caught in a particular mood or whim, could gripe.

 

[cudamark]

To what avail would such a pursuit serve? This deal isn't in progress as it has already been long finalized. Sure, the pot could be stirred a little, perhaps, but to what avail? I'm certainly not going to endure the stress and financial burden over this particular "community" concern. However, I might do some more snooping and put the bug in a few ears but that's about it. Really all I can do.

If you become too big a thorn in their side, maybe they'll give you permission to hunt just to shut you up!