Freedom challenge 2013 route access issues

[Ketoorskop]

Ketoorskop, my apologies if my tone is being read as aggressive, it is not meant like that at all. I understand your view point as we have ben in the same situation before when we owned a farm.

 

If people were climbing over the fence, why not put in a gate ? Why not put a wooden ladder over the fence ?

\

There was a (locked) gate, mainly because it has always been a case of entry by appointment since long before this thing started.

[Slowbee]

There was a (locked) gate, mainly because it has always been a case of entry by appointment since long before this thing started.

ah ! now everything becomes clear !! got it ! I need to work if I want to ride later. Have a good weekend Ketoorskop, go give those riders some water, its going to be warm this weekend.

[Ketoorskop]

ah ! now everything becomes clear !! got it ! I need to work if I want to ride later. Have a good weekend Ketoorskop, go give those riders some water, its going to be warm this weekend.

Cool beans!

[Kranky]

I'm not an owner as such, but an interested and affected party and you are right about the time and money spent. Although there is business aspect operated through a trust, it is operated at a loss as all the turnover (and some extra cash input from the owner's pockets) goes into maintaining the place. Visitors might have noticed for instance the orange TLB/digger parked under the shed at Boplaas which was bought and is operated at significant expense to one of the owners for the purpose of maintaining the private road from Cape Nature to the Ladder as it is not maintained by the authorities (being a private road).

 

Private investment does not get rid of a servitude. Yes, it is nice of people to invest in the land and the route but no one is obliged to maintain a right of way, including the government. You are confusing a servitude with a public road, the two are very different things. A servitude is defined by the fact that it is on private land. You keep ignoring this vital point.

 

There was a (locked) gate, mainly because it has always been a case of entry by appointment since long before this thing started.

 

Long before the alleged servitude started?

 

I'm not prepared to debate the legality of that matter.

 

Then what are you arguing? The morality of the matter? Are you saying we can just do as we like irrespective of the law?

[BenDL]

From today's race report

http://glennharrisonsa.blogspot.com/2013/06/daily-report-28-june.html

 

"After all the drama yesterday, today was a relatively uneventful day in the Gamkaskloof. All of the fifteen riders who slept there last night got up The Ladder without incident and went on to Rouxpos."

 

Thank you Ketoorskop for stating your side here - hope we meet on the trail one day?

[Ketoorskop]

Private investment does not get rid of a servitude. Yes, it is nice of people to invest in the land and the route but no one is obliged to maintain a right of way, including the government. You are confusing a servitude with a public road, the two are very different things. A servitude is defined by the fact that it is on private land. You keep ignoring this vital point.

 

 

 

Long before the alleged servitude started?

 

 

 

Then what are you arguing? The morality of the matter? Are you saying we can just do as we like irrespective of the law?

THERE IS NO SERVITUDE. Not now, not before. I am not confusing the issue here.

[DJR]

I would love to know the following:

 

When the road into Gamkaskloof was built originally (in the 1950s if I remember correctly), was the stretch from the Gamka river (near where Cape Nature land ends) and on into the disputed private land to the dead end at the bottom of the Ladder, built by the Cape Provincial Administration also? I'm pretty sure it was not built by the owners at the time, them not having had the kind of machinery or manpower to build that road in that type of terrain. If that is the case, it would mean it was built with taxpayers money in the first place.

 

I know that if there was a mule / donkey / bridal path before the road was built as it was 1 of 3 routes into and out of the Kloof.

 

How would this influence the current dispute?

[DJR]

By the way, this is a HELL of a thorny issue!

 

(I can't believe nobody noticed the connection up to this point.)

[tubed]

THERE IS NO SERVITUDE. Not now, not before. I am not confusing the issue here.

 

Historical public right of way as recognised by law, (not registered in the title deed), but there long before you ever set foot there.

 

Do yourself a favour and read the legal opinions offered in the posts above.

 

You say you are not going to debate the legality - but then you keep wading into that domain......

 

If you want to keep people off your property who had been going there for decades as you acknowledge on your website selling your services, then go to court and get an order to stop them - you choose not to do this why?.

[Ketoorskop]

Historical public right of way as recognised by law, (not registered in the title deed), but there long before you ever set foot there.

 

Do yourself a favour and read the legal opinions offered in the posts above.

 

You say you are not going to debate the legality - but then you keep wading into that domain......

 

If you want to keep people off your property who had been going there for decades as you acknowledge on your website selling your services, then go to court and get an order to stop them - you choose not to do this why?.

Let's just be clear again that this is a simple forum debate about what is happening on the ground now and the issue that surrounds it. Of course there is a need to steer clear of delving too deep into the legal aspects of it (on both sides) without the proper legal counsel (although it seems that some are deliberately trying to draw me into that realm). So my opinions are merely based on my own research and interpretation of the matter.

So, as you point out, there is no registered (praedial) servitude and it comes down to whether there is a legitimate historical right the merits of which would have to be the subject of the more formal/professional legal dispute. And as another pointed out just now, there were at least 3 known routes in and out of the valley before the road came in. How this influences the matter I am not sure and this will probably also be on the thoughts of the legal minds involved.

I hope this settles my opinion on the matter that we don't have to keep arguing in circles ad nauseum.

Basic position still remains that the owners do not recognise the race organiser's claim that the road is open to all and sundry without permission. Also, to answer your question, court action should be a last resort and so far as I have it the owners have made numerous efforts to resolve this through dialogue with the organisers.

P.S. The "Mountain Men" did not offer further resistance to riders out of lack of willpower, but mainly because of other commitments and partly because our quarrel is not with them personally, but with the organisers who have mislead them into thinking they have rights which they do not.

Lekker dag verder!

[DJR]

Could I add fuel to the fire? Or perhaps just play devils advocate?

 

There are also other places in this same area where I would love to see amazing mountain biking routes opened. Hopefully with full support of open minded landowners and without confrontational court cases.

 

Imagine :

 

A big circular ride starting at Meiringspoort, going through an area called Die Aap (problematic), to Gamkaskloof, then up Die Leer (problematic), through Bosluiskloof, over the Gamkapoort dam (problematic), Prince Albert, Seekoegat and back to Meiringspoort.

 

Or - Do a huge figure of 8, start at Meringspoort, ride as above, but after Die Leer, go left through Seweweekspoort, Calitzdorp, Kruisrivier, Matjiesfontein, Swartberg Pass, Prince Albert, Seekoegat, back to Meiringspoort.

 

Many more permutations of the above is possible, but this should be enough to convince anyone that there is HUGE potential for riders as well as for land owners. To do any of the above routes will require sleeping over at from 3 to 5 guesthouses or self catering cottages. It will most likely also involve a local or 2 for back-up support. I simply cannot see anyone losing out. Mountain bikers pose no threat to the security of the landowners. The numbers of riders passing through will always be smallish because of the terrain and should not cause any inconvenience.

 

What it could truly do, is to put this part of the world on the map as a world class ride. That can only be good for local tourism and the local economy, which is very dependent on tourism. The reason these areas are no longer farmed, is precisely because the are not economically viable. Multi day rides in the area will fill up a few guest houses and self catering cottages for the landowners.

 

To me, it sounds like this fight is a bit silly, because everyone stands to lose. Yes, the Freedom Challenge might get free access, but then the racers will have to pass through hostile terrain, which is not nice. It is so much better to have friendly supportive locals (think Sani). The landowners might get their fortress strengthened, but they lose an opportunity to get their property to help pay for itself and to benefit the whole, much larger, area.

 

Methinks, there is a win-win that can easily be reached, but it will take a bit of a bigger picture approach. Come on people, grow up, temper the egos and get the right thing done!

[mazambaan]

@DJR; this is a great idea but needs organisation then understanding and responsibility from the cyclists. Ahem, I have heard secondhand I admit from a few farmers on the Sani2c route that a tiny minority of riders think these tracks are open year round and can be accessed at will without permission. Sadly they leave evidence of their passing in the form of open gates etc. I didn't say litter!

 

Be very careful on private land guys. This time of year - no smoking - even aaptwak.

 

The fact that Ketoors comes onto the Hub makes me really hopeful that robust discussion over a few jars can sort out the Freedom Challenge access from Die Hel.

[tubed]

the welcome to the Leer from the Boschluiskloof side

[Thug]

Maybe I'm just being simple here but after having read all posts on this thorny issue, whether or not the road is deemed private, surely a simple "Please may 25/30 riders traverse the land between the weeks of......." would solve the issue amicably?

[Shebeen]

Could I add fuel to the fire? Or perhaps just play devils advocate?

 

There are also other places in this same area where I would love to see amazing mountain biking routes opened. Hopefully with full support of open minded landowners and without confrontational court cases.

 

Imagine :

 

A big circular ride starting at Meiringspoort, going through an area called Die Aap (problematic), to Gamkaskloof, then up Die Leer (problematic), through Bosluiskloof, over the Gamkapoort dam (problematic), Prince Albert, Seekoegat and back to Meiringspoort.

 

Or - Do a huge figure of 8, start at Meringspoort, ride as above, but after Die Leer, go left through Seweweekspoort, Calitzdorp, Kruisrivier, Matjiesfontein, Swartberg Pass, Prince Albert, Seekoegat, back to Meiringspoort.

 

Many more permutations of the above is possible, but this should be enough to convince anyone that there is HUGE potential for riders as well as for land owners. To do any of the above routes will require sleeping over at from 3 to 5 guesthouses or self catering cottages. It will most likely also involve a local or 2 for back-up support. I simply cannot see anyone losing out. Mountain bikers pose no threat to the security of the landowners. The numbers of riders passing through will always be smallish because of the terrain and should not cause any inconvenience.

 

What it could truly do, is to put this part of the world on the map as a world class ride. That can only be good for local tourism and the local economy, which is very dependent on tourism. The reason these areas are no longer farmed, is precisely because the are not economically viable. Multi day rides in the area will fill up a few guest houses and self catering cottages for the landowners.

 

To me, it sounds like this fight is a bit silly, because everyone stands to lose. Yes, the Freedom Challenge might get free access, but then the racers will have to pass through hostile terrain, which is not nice. It is so much better to have friendly supportive locals (think Sani). The landowners might get their fortress strengthened, but they lose an opportunity to get their property to help pay for itself and to benefit the whole, much larger, area.

 

Methinks, there is a win-win that can easily be reached, but it will take a bit of a bigger picture approach. Come on people, grow up, temper the egos and get the right thing done!

sounds lekker. Edited July 2, 2013 by Shebeen

[johannrissik]

Maybe I'm just being simple here but after having read all posts on this thorny issue, whether or not the road is deemed private, surely a simple "Please may 25/30 riders traverse the land between the weeks of......." would solve the issue amicably?

A public right of way is just that, a public right of way.

A landowner does not have the right to offer exclusive access on a public right of way.

Die Leer is a public right of way and this right needs protection.

 

That said, I am the first to respect the privacy of landowners (and don't even get me started on littering..)

 

There is a perfectly sensible and mutually beneficial solution to this issue. It involves respecting rights.