01-08-2017, 09:28 PM
(01-08-2017, 07:18 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: The characterization of the crossing as having “trespassed” across the hydro right of way is entirely inappropriate. The corridor had an official path running along it and absolutely no attempt was made to prevent people from walking wherever they wanted in the corridor. There may be a case to be made in some cases that using some of the crossings required trespassing on adjacent properties, although even there that is in many cases not appropriate due to the lack of fencing or signage and in some cases the presence of specifically-constructed gaps in fences.
And don’t get me started on the statement that a crossing would be “unsafe”. In addition to what others have already pointed out, we don’t need people making up bogus safety issues that even the sometimes overly enthusiastic regulators aren’t concerned about (or at least, aren’t concerned about identical situations in other parts of the city).
I agree with this. I feel that her mind is in the right place, but the statement isn't ideal.
That being said, there might be some technical trespass issues, I'm not a lawyer, but they probably apply to the businesses rather than the hydro corridor. Still, I'm not sure how trespass would even apply to a parking lot on private property. Certainly it couldn't be trespass if you were actually going to the store in question.
At the very least the city feels they are unable to simply provide a crossing which accesses the back of the properties. I really don't understand why, but that's no guarantee that there isn't a reason.