[exabrial]

Really shortsided position by the land owner, and I have no doubt he’ll end up with far less rights than he started by raking people over the coals.

Pulling straight from Franklin Covey’s seven habits: think win-win. Simply allowing people to cross at the corner and encouraging them to do so by building a path works keeps them off his land and in public areas. Hell even charge them a reasonable fee for the crossing to keep it from becoming a free for all!

But the no compromise, ‘7 million airspace violation’ position will lose badly in the long term, even if he can convince if he can convince a few local juries for a few short sighted temporary wins. Worst case scenario is the federal government decides that there has to be land access and forces a road onto his private property. Now _that_ would suck.

[shmageggy]

> Simply allowing people to cross at the corner and encouraging them to do so by building a path works keeps them off his land and in public areas.

But that's not what this person wants. He wants to maintain exclusive access to land that isn't his.

[dkokelley]

Agreed that squeezing too hard will probably backfire. I don’t agree that encouraging or facilitating the crossing is a win-win.

It’s likely that the landowners bought the plots strategically to get de facto “ownership” of the public land. Why buy all of the land when you can buy the moat around it?

[exhilaration]

The best part is that he couldn't even convince a local jury!