Another land dispute, Farmer vs State

[Diggin It]

These people have been working the land for 40 years, mostly by hand, packing stuff in and out by horseback for a while, Now the state decides part of the land isn't theirs to work. They improved it and made something out of it, providing food for the community and training for area youth.

Organic farmers fight Idaho for land they thought was theirs​

The Spokesman-Review|31 minutes ago
According to arguments filed by Deputy Attorney General J.J. Winters, the state argues that the Sempels illegally occupied state endowment lands, which are used by the state for logging and grazing leases to raise money for state-funded education.

 

[319Quahog]

So it's early, I can still taste last night's gin, and that's a long article.

What I've got is this is adjacent land to property they've owned. At least I think they own something as they're paying property tax on something.

They mistakenly thought that land was theirs and developed it.

State later acquired that parcel in 96.

Now the state want them off, but it doesn't look like the state wants to use the land. Mainly the state saying "It's mine". Sounds like it is.

*********************************

I feel for the Sempels, but surveyors have been around a long time. I'm all for the little guy against the state, but no real excuse for not knowing your property. "They told me the lines were there" is a weak excuse among adults.

The fines by the state are a bit much. Cutting a trail and cutting some wood is basically what the state would do to manage that forest anyways. Perhaps the state is tacking on some timber trespass charges/fees as well.

Surely there is an easier outcome than fining these folks into the stone age while somehow satisfying property ownership issues. It is only 23 acres sounds like. Land is pricey there, but doesn't look too pricey.

If Mrs Sempel is truly providing food for local restaurants/markets as the article says, leaving the operation running would be a net positive for the area.

 

[RjCorazza]

The farmers should have stayed on their own property. The article is clearly the initial attempt to sway public opinion, painting the farmers as innocent hard working folks being victimized by the state.
Now the other side...
Say it was an innocent mistake by the farmer. The state had plenty of time to address the encroachment, but apparently took little or no action. The farmer was "open and notorious" for quite a long time, so depending on the local law, they may win the land by adverse possession.

 

[Rockbadchild]

I am confuse on which boundary they encroached over, was it their barbwire fence that was built before 1979 if so they knew what there where doing... or are they talking about a other boundary ? but still usually in most place you can acquirer public/state land for a business but yes you have to do the step necessary before the fact not after... someone definitely complained... I guess there's no squatting rights law in Idaho or that just apply for private land ?? anyhow I agree that the article attempt to sway public opinion, there is lots of blabla in there and yet don't clearly explain the facts.

“There is no question that after 1998, the Sempels have encroached into State land, slowly expanding their farming operation over time,”

 

[Panik]

Setting aside for a moment who's "in the right" and any of the relevant case arguments over occupancy rights referenced in the article....

I'd be really interested to see the chain of property titles and associated legal descriptions of the land in question. In disputes like this it's not uncommon for there to be historic transcription errors in property descriptions from when property ownership has changed hands...especially when you start talking about documents that were created 100+ years ago.

For better or worse, usually for the better in my instances, I've been involved in a couple disputes over legal property descriptions with state agencies, as well as private entities. While I'm sure it varies, with the small sample size I've seen it is just as likely for state interpretation of property & easement description to be incorrect as it is is for private property owners.

**Edit - and yes I agree the article definitely appears to be a sympathy piece towards the Sempels

 

[dodge man]

As a land surveyor I’d like to know what a surveyor found and if there is a differing opinion. It shoukd be a black and white issue where the boundary line is but often it’s not.

I’d also say they own the ground by adverse possession. There seems to be a mistaken belief that you can’t get adverse possession against the government but it’s not true. What happens is regular people can’t afford to fight it through the court system so the government wins by default.

 

[caver]

I whited out the parcel numbers as I didn't want to be accused of doxxing. You can see they ignored the northern border or assumed way too much. they own three parcels which all have been red lined by me.

 

[dodge man]

Looking at Caver’s picture it sure doesn’t look like it’s a small encroachment.

 

[Rockbadchild]

I whited out the parcel numbers as I didn't want to be accused of doxxing. You can see they ignored the northern border or assumed way too much. they own three parcels which all have been red lined by me.

the barbe wire fence was at the south border do you know ? or it was the north border and they removed it to built their green house?

 

[caver]

Everything north (up) of that line is all state property for some distance in both directions.