|
cadaverchris
May 4, 2004, 2:52 AM
Post #2 of 21
(32575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 12, 2003
Posts: 323
|
thanks for the update.
the climber summary is this:
don't climb here, just yet. we're getting closer to having good access through a rail-trail park arrangement.
|
|
|
|
|
jkarns
May 4, 2004, 12:45 PM
Post #3 of 21
(32575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 542
|
This needs a few more views!
I know that there are many people who believe that nothing is happening at Safe Harbor. I hope this sheds some light on the status of this access sensitive crag.
I'm interested in any feedback or questions folks might have!
|
|
|
|
|
mr8615
May 4, 2004, 12:54 PM
Post #4 of 21
(32575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 4, 2004
Posts: 1032
|
I'm glad to hear things are in the works. I'm spending this summer in Lancaster County, any chance things will happen in time to get on the wall there before August?
Mark
|
|
|
|
|
dredsovrn
May 4, 2004, 1:00 PM
Post #5 of 21
(32575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2003
Posts: 1226
|
Sounds great! Since Safe Harbor is generally regarded as one of the best climbing areas around, it would be nice to have access.
|
|
|
|
|
rokshoxbkr19
May 4, 2004, 7:11 PM
Post #6 of 21
(32575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2002
Posts: 767
|
Hmmm, no new news
|
|
|
|
|
crag
May 4, 2004, 7:47 PM
Post #7 of 21
(32575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 29, 2003
Posts: 623
|
Thanks Josh for the up-date. It is obvious that your efforts along with the others you've mentioned are note worthy. We all should be grateful for their efforts will benefit us all. Please be respectful of the current ban hopefully it will be lifted soon.
Finally I liked to publicly apologize to Josh for my short sightedness and crass reactions to your previous post concerning the efforts of people to do good for us climbers in PA.
Cheers,
Crag
|
|
|
|
|
jkarns
May 5, 2004, 12:58 PM
Post #9 of 21
(32575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 542
|
Unfortunately, there is a sizeable number of locals who have decided that they have some kind of right to climb at Safe Harbor. While this has had no ill effect to date, I'll be awfully pissed if they manage to screw this thing up!
|
|
|
|
|
mr8615
May 5, 2004, 1:03 PM
Post #10 of 21
(32575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 4, 2004
Posts: 1032
|
I'm all for staying off of sketchy land, but in this case, does anyone really care about climbers? It seems to me like the railroad doesn't want the land, and the government can't agree who should get it or get rights to say how it gets used. It doesn't seem like anyone cares if there are people using it. I may be wrong, but if people are climbing there or hiking there (I've spoken with people who have gone hiking there) and are not being bothered because no one cares that they're there than what's the problem? The no trespassing thing covers the RR's ass but if they don't care, why not climb there? I know I'm out of the loop since I've been out of Lancaster for two years now but help me out with some details that I'm missing here.
Mark
|
|
|
|
|
leaverbiner
May 13, 2004, 7:29 PM
Post #11 of 21
(32575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2002
Posts: 482
|
MR you are not correct in your assumptions for many reasons, some of which I will not go into because they would require way too much technical legal discussion . . . the basics are as follows - although PA has laws to protect landowners from liability stemming from recreational use, such laws are not fool proof and regardless of the ultimate liability to the landowner, there is nothing preventing someone from filing an action - while the landowner may escape liability, they are still likely to be saddled with legal bills! Further - the issue has been greatly simplified - and for good reason - yes, Conrail/NS are actively looking to get rid of the land. But, as any home/land owner knows, land comes with inherent liability - both from injury as well as from a tax stand point. Most land in Pennsylvania is governed by a series of regulations, not the least of which is zoning but also many historic overlays . . this land is burdened by historic designations, tremendous potential for liability and numerous other faults. NS is actively seeking a way to have this land conveyed to local or county government - at which point the land would likely be dedicated to public use. The conveyance of the land is not a simple transaction, but if (or when) it is accomplished, it is likely that we will see the openign of this land to recreational use. NS - believe it or not, has it's own security force - they patrol NS land to safeguard both the land as well as other NS assets - climbing on this land not only risks arrest by local authorities, but f you are cought by NS security you will be prosecuted. Anyone that continues to use this PRIVATE property endangers the entire process. Anyone that does not respect the rights or property owners and thinks that because land is not being actively used by its owner it is free for all to use, is sadly mistaken and has a demented sense of slf importance and lack of respect for others.
Josh - I previously posted a messgae letting you know that I am willing and able to be activly involved in this matter, but now weeks have gone by and you have said and done nothing!?!?! I am confused by this if you are supposed to be a steward for PA Climbers.
|
|
|
|
|
mr8615
May 18, 2004, 1:04 AM
Post #12 of 21
(32575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 4, 2004
Posts: 1032
|
Anything new on the Safe Harbor front? I'm back in Lancaster and itching to get out climbing after work sometime. Anyone around who would be up for some climbing in the evenings or this weekend? Lemme know.
Mark
|
|
|
|
|
curt
May 18, 2004, 2:51 AM
Post #13 of 21
(32575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
I think this thread would be more useful in the "Access Issues & Closures" forum. Just my $.02.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
dontfall
May 18, 2004, 4:25 PM
Post #14 of 21
(32575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 31, 2003
Posts: 2798
|
dontfall moved this thread from Regional Discussions to Access Issues & Closures.
|
|
|
|
|
oquipah
Jul 18, 2004, 2:29 PM
Post #15 of 21
(32575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 29, 2003
Posts: 4
|
Do not go to Safe Harbor until the legal process has completed. Going there not only slows the process but puts the initiative at risk.
Going there gets bad press (see any local papers from last week).
Let the people working towards the opening of the area do their work and be patient.
there are other open areas that offer climbs, go there!
|
|
|
|
|
crag
Jul 23, 2004, 1:46 AM
Post #16 of 21
(32575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 29, 2003
Posts: 623
|
Safe Harbor is open yes or no, would someone please clarify this for me. I've heard, of recent all sorts of things concerning this little crag. For instance that some of the orignal FA's have been busy performing anchor replacement.
IMWTK
|
|
|
|
|
alclimbs
Jul 25, 2004, 9:47 PM
Post #17 of 21
(32575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2003
Posts: 8
|
Safe Harbor is closed. There is a glitch between the county comminsioners office and Norfolk Southeran and the townships appeal. Norfolk Southran is protrolling the area until the land is signed over to either the townships or the park service.
Until the appeals process between the county comminsioners and the townships is over climbers need to stay away. It is critical to the process of making this an open area that climbers respect the area as closed.
The Access Fund is working on the issue.
|
|
|
|
|
chronicle
Aug 16, 2004, 3:18 PM
Post #18 of 21
(32575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 26, 2003
Posts: 664
|
While talking with the guy at the local climbing shop he mentioned that Safe Harbor is now open and that Eric Horst has been retrobolting steadily. Can anyone back this up? I've searched all over and have not seen anything that says this area is open for climbing. Just looking for an update. Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
|
|
alclimbs
Aug 17, 2004, 9:52 PM
Post #19 of 21
(32575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2003
Posts: 8
|
Safe Harbor is closed! If you read the posts above you have the current information. AF is working with the park service but the land still needs to transfer from the rail road before anything else can happen. The best thing people can do is stay out of the area untill it is officaly open. Current information is avaible at Lancaster Climbing Clubs web site and aslo PAC's site.
|
|
|
|
|
chronicle
Aug 18, 2004, 1:47 PM
Post #20 of 21
(32575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 26, 2003
Posts: 664
|
I did read the posts above, and on the PAC website. Given that the last post was in July, and the information I was given was 4 days ago, I was looking for an update as I stated. Maybe the "I've searched all over..." in my last post wasn't clear enough.
I find it a little disturbing that the guy that runs the climbing shop is telling people that Safe Harbor is open and backing that up with the story of Eric Horst replacing the bolts. I didn't really trust him when he told me that (since that would have been big news on the PAC site and here), so I'm glad I asked.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
mmindtrap
Aug 30, 2004, 12:33 PM
Post #21 of 21
(32575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 268
|
Townships to appeal county rail-trail ruling
By P.j. Reilly
Intelligencer Journal
Published: Jul 13, 2004 9:55 AM EST
LANCASTER COUNTY, PA - Six southern Lancaster County townships plan to appeal the county commissioners’ decision last month to take through eminent domain the 23-mile Enola Low-Grade Line property.
Supervisors in Eden, Martic, Sadsbury, Providence, Conestoga and Bart townships all have agreed to appeal the county’s taking of the 930-acre property from Norfolk Southern to build a rail trail. They have directed a Harrisburg attorney to represent them.
The commissioners voted June 16 to take the land through eminent domain after supervisors in the six townships failed to accept an easement agreement offered by the commissioners which would have made the rail-trail project a joint county/municipal venture.
“I feel the county did not negotiate with us in good faith,” said Providence Township supervisor Wayne Herr, who called the county’s easement proposal “unacceptable.”
County Commissioner Molly Henderson late Monday night said she was not aware of the decision by the municipalities to appeal the county’s taking of the Enola property, but she said the county plans to continue its preliminary work developing the rail line into a trail.
“We are hoping to go forward with this project, and we hope to work with the townships in the future,” she said.
The townships this spring were poised to receive the land from Norfolk Southern as soon as some administrative hurdles imposed by the federal Surface Transportation Board were cleared.
Hoping to establish rights to the line before ownership changed hands, the county commissioners pitched their easement agreement to the townships in May.
The agreement would have allowed the townships to own the rail line property, while guaranteeing the county a 100-foot-wide easement down the center of the line for a trail.
When they offered the agreement proposal, the commissioners insisted supervisors in the six townships accept it at their respective June meetings.
Several of the supervisors said that wasn’t enough time for them to review the agreement and act on it under their operating rules. None of the townships accepted the county’s offer.
Citing fears that ownership of the land would be transferred to the townships before a written agreement was established guaranteeing the rail line would be preserved as a contiguous corridor, the commissioners voted to file in county court a “document of taking.”
The commissioners have said that document makes the county the current owner of the Enola property. Work to secure and improve the line already has begun under the direction of the county’s parks and recreation department.
Supervisors in the six townships over the past week have agreed to ask Harrisburg attorney Scott Wyland to represent them during their appeal. Wyland has represented the municipalities for years in their quest to take control of the Enola property.
At their meeting Monday, Providence supervisors said it will cost the seven townships between $8,000 and $10,000 to file the appeal in county court.
As the townships contest the county’s actions, they also will consider their own agreement to maintain a contiguous 30-foot-wide corridor down the center of the rail line. That corridor could be used for a trail, according to the agreement.
Some of the townships already have accepted the intermunicipal agreement, while others have yet to take formal votes on it. The agreement would only take effect if the townships win their appeal of the county’s taking of the land.
Intelligencer Journal reporter Michael Ryan and correspondents Debbie Wygent, Bob Scott, Marcella Peyre-Ferry and Greg Caldwell contributed to this story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
