Songs making fun of land grab case in Boulder, Colorado

A while back I posted a story about a lawyer couple who were able to take away part of their neighbor's property under the doctrine of "adverse possession."

Many people in Boulder believe the court's decision was wrong. Others believe that while the court may have been technically correct, Richard McLean (a former judge in Boulder) and Edith Stevens used their connections to take the land in an underhanded manner.

Don Wrege, a Boulder songwriter, made three hilarious parody songs about the case. One is based on Mister Rogers' "Won't You Be My Neighbor," another parodies Woodie Guthrie's "This Land is Your Land," and the third is a delightful take-off of "You're a Mean One, Mister Grinch."

1. Stealing Land From Our Neighbor

2. This Land Belongs to Don and Susie

3. Edie and Dick (The Grinch Theme)

Link

• [jphilby]

  * prompts landowners to discourage trespassing
  * rewards people who use their land
  * doing something to maintain the property

  Well now, isn’t that a prim, I daresay even tidy little list of prescriptions. Why, it’s almost Victorian. I swell with civic pride at such an efficient demonstration of proper comportment. Bully, I say, bully.

• [getyourdegreeonline]

  The songs are funny.

  But give me a break!

  Adverse possession is not unethical — as every first year law student learns, this doctrine serves legitimate purposes. For example, it prompts landowners to discourage trespassing, and it rewards people who use their land, as opposed to letting it fall into disrepair.

  Property ownership has its benefits and burdens — doing something to maintain the property (i.e., kicking out trespassers) as opposed to nothing is one of those burdens.

  Give it a shot – go start adversely possessing that vacant lot near your home today!

  (Disclaimer: This should not be construed as legal advice.)

• [Antinous]

  God forbid that there should be undeveloped land outside of a national park. An empty lot that children could play in – clearly a violation of the doctrine of manifest destiny. Begone, evil wildlife habitat! Wither and die, odious noise buffer! Fence it, pave it or lose it! That’s the American way.

• [Skep]

  Adverse possession is not unethical — as every first year law student learns, this doctrine serves legitimate purposes. For example, it prompts landowners to discourage trespassing, and it rewards people who use their land, as opposed to letting it fall into disrepair.

  Unless the adverse possessors made at least a nominal attempt to locate and notify the owners of their use of the land and paid the property tax every year on the portion they were using I would say that the adverse possession was very much unethical. Keep in mind that unethical doesn’t necessarily mean illegal and one can still reasonably condemn people for practices that are sanctioned under the law.

• [Anonymous]

  #1,

  Just curious, do they teach morality in law school?

• [guezo]

  I’ve been to this plot of land. I saw Don performing one of these songs there. It’s far from some abandoned vacant lot–it’s one of the most desirable home sites in Boulder, right on the edge of open space, at a trailhead, and right up against the Flatirons. A popular theory about why Edie and Dick pursued this lawsuit is that they were simply trying to block the construction of a house on it, to preserve their view. There’s little doubt that the McLeans have exploited an outdated law for great financial benefit.

• [danheeb]

  Oh how soon we forget.

  This story has been around rather recently, and it’s extremely unclear whether the requirements for adverse possession were fulfilled, let alone proven.

  Not my actual comment:

  @anyone new to this topic: reading the old comments thread would clear a lot up for everyone. (http://www.boingboing.net/2007/11/21/land-grab-case-in-bo.html) A bit of homework will help us all have a good discussion.

  @1 Adverse possession is a reasonable law, but in this case it seems grossly misused.

  @2 if the usage wasn’t exclusive, the law doesn’t apply. So a place where many children played could not be adversely posessed.

  @3 Check the entry on wikipedia. It does make sense, sort of. Usually the possession has to have following elements for something like 20 years:

  physical: open and notorious (visible); actual; exclusive;
  mental: hostile; (ie, the not-paying-taxes part)
  temporal: continuous (uninterrupted).

• [Tony Indindoli]

  Satirical songs don’t bother lawyers hardly at all. What ya need is some good old tar and feathers.

• [twodox]

  I have been aware of adverse possession and it uses since childhood. I lived in Parkchester in the Bronx, owned then by MetLife. It was then the largest apartment complex in the world and the buildings were arranged around private streets, generally cul-de-sacs. Once a year, the management would block entry to these streets (one at a time), until all the cars had vacated, and repaint the parking lines. But, the main objective was to prevent adverse possession by the renters.

  I bought my first home in Connecticut in part because it had a ‘shortcut’ in the back to the local elementary school, and thus my kids would have an easier time going to school. It was in general use by the neighbors’ kids as well. I would also block it at least once a year, either by tape (when resurfacing the driveway), or by piling huge mounds of snow across the trail. I just wanted to take no chances. (The driveway, which ran along the property line, also went onto my neighbors’ lot at the turning to the garage. I guess I could have claimed adverse possession, but I chose to inform my neighbor and we agreed that it was not a problem.)

  The value and equity of the law is debatable, but it is the law, and homeowners should be made aware of it and react according. Note that even if the encroacher does not take possession of the property, he could claim the establishment of an easement by adverse possession, which could limit any attempts to sell the property. We have seen cases like this at our PZC meetings.

• [mscot]

  congratulations, you saved 10 seconds and insured no one would ever care about what you had to say.

• [rageahol]

  mtspc-prprty-rghts-bsltsts r lmst s nnyng s ntllctl-prprty-rghts bsltsts.

  fnny tht rd “shdw cts” bcs f ths blg, bt th blk f cmmntrs n th prvs thrd bt ths cpl wr lsng thr sht bcs smn sd dvrs psssn n wy thy thght ws scrwy.

  n cnclsn, stf.

• [dragonfrog]

  As others have said – adverse possession has its benefits. Principally this is needed when people are occupying land they believe to be rightfully theirs.

  Official property lines often don’t match the lines of fences that have been there time out of mind. Neighbour A finally finds this out, and wants to take his land back, which would mean forcing Neigbour B to tear down the house his family has lived in for generations.

  And indeed – one of the main weaknesses of the laws as we have them now is that they favour exploitation over conservation. Goes back to the days of “breaking the land”, dunnit.