Residents: Interesting article on JF's gate policy

Suprising nobody's mentioned the big gray areas concerning "public access" for "private developments" which encompass former "public easements (easement by public use)". Judith Fancy is not alone. Simliar situations exist on STT and STJ. Not for one new york minute, do the waterfront HOAs (FJ, BB, WP, ect) allow access because some sort of warm hearted community spirit. Baloney! Access is granted as a compromise to avoid a law suit which questions the legality of the orginal deed transfers. How strictly access is controlled is a balancing act. I completely understand the desire for security. I don't fault the HOAs for taking every measure possible. However access is access and no amount of heavy handed posturing will change that.

The road was probably included in the sale of the property because it is a PRIVATE ESTATE ROAD.
Such is the way of many sales of properties within named estate areas.
Just because the road was there in the past before JF complex was built, going to a plantation, it certainly belonged to the estate
the plantation was on and it doesn''t necessarily mean it was a public road tho it may have been publicly used before the time it was accquired by JF/HOA.

If I owned a home on a beach front property ,I would not want everyone and their uncle tromping up and down, across my property,
at all hours af the day and night. Neither would you, no matter who you are.

My HOA owns our road

Are you saying that the main road (now called Hamilton Drive) did not exist prior to Oxford purchasing the land?

How did people get to the Sugar plantation in the 1700s prior to Oxford purchasing the land? The plantation was there way before you say that Oxford built the roads.

Hilarious. I'm simply hazarding a wild guess that people in the 18th century made their way by foot or by donkey along that rutted unkempt path through the bush. That's the daftest analogy I've read in a very long time. 300 years and several sovereignties later but now we're compelled to revisit the 18th century and simply slough off the intervening centuries?

The recent burglaries have for the most part been digitally documented and were undoubtedly committed by outsiders using the guise of gaining access for lobster fishing. .

Lobster Fishing? Your security guards buy that line? Did the perps tow a dingy, have dive gear, catch cages? Really? If so these guys are pretty smart hoodlums. What's to prevent them from returning with fake or stolen IDs or lawn mowers?

Digitally documented? impressive. If JF has such high tech survalence in place, why the need for retaining DLs?

And, did the digital documentation lead to any arrests. Were your security gaurds able to provide a description of the loberster fisherman.

Checking the ID from the drivers is fine. But what about all the passengers? Every house keeper and gardener and worker presents a regulation photo ID?

What about the beach shore line?

I totally understand the desire for security, but let's be real. a guarded gate may lend a sense of comfort but it does not eliminate crime.

Suprising nobody's mentioned the big gray areas concerning "public access" for "private developments" which encompass former "public easements (easement by public use)". Judith Fancy is not alone. Simliar situations exist on STT and STJ.

It's not unusual for old public easements to be eventually superseded, no more than it's not unusual for zoning changes to be revised over time. In a democratic society it's quite common for such changes to be made but with public input heeded and then we have the laws applying to eminent domain which sometimes come into play. If you look into those "gray areas" you'll likely find the answers recorded in the public domain.

Okay - one last thing.
I find it absurd that Mr. Bryan is up in arms about being required to show id to be granted access when this is the same person that shot a cow that accidentally, TRESPASSED, on his "private property" some years back. Guess the cow didn't have an id on her.

Okay - one last thing.
I find it absurd that Mr. Bryan is up in arms about being required to show id to be granted access when this is the same person that shot a cow that accidentally, TRESPASSED, on his "private property" some years back. Guess the cow didn't have an id on her.

Was his own son who was growing pot on Bert's property and who he shot in the back and killed also trespassing? Sorry, couldn't resist!

Similar situation on STT with Botany Bay.
https://www.vimovingcenter.com/talk/read.php?4,68102,188800,page=2#msg-188800
Beach goers unhappy with restricted access...
Big money residents seem to be exempt....

Not for one new york minute, do the waterfront HOAs (FJ, BB, WP, ect) allow access because some sort of warm hearted community spirit. Baloney! Access is granted as a compromise to avoid a law suit which questions the legality of the orginal deed transfers. How strictly access is controlled is a balancing act. I completely understand the desire for security. I don't fault the HOAs for taking every measure possible. However access is access and no amount of heavy handed posturing will change that.

Blu4u, I was at meetings with the JF board and security committee members and virtually everyone involved ardently and genuinely wanted to preserve access for the greater St. Croix community to the beach and roads in Judith's fancy for people to use for recreation. This is not baloney, it was expressed multiple times by all involved that allowing access to guests was an important consideration when coming up with security measures to protect our property. I am of the opinion that visitors and guests actually make the community much safer while they spend time walking/jogging the community or spending time on the beach as they serve as ad hoc "eyes and ears" for odd going ons. I expressed this opinion while meeting with the JF security comittee and got agreement from others involved that this was a good point.

I don't know how I can convince you or others of this other than to share what I heard in the meetings: that access was one of the most important concerns during the entire discussion.

One other thing, I agree that a gate alone isn't going to solve all crime issues, no one I've talked to at JF believes this to be the case. There is no one thing that is going to eliminate crime. A well run security gate is one tool amongst many to use in keeping things safe.

For those who have specific issues with the JF gate I invite you to PM me on this board and I will bring them up at the next meeting.

Thanks,

Sean

I am of the opinion that visitors and guests actually make the community much safer while they spend time walking/jogging the community or spending time on the beach as they serve as ad hoc "eyes and ears" for odd going ons, and I expressed this opinion while meeting with the JF security comittee. I don't know how I can convince you of this, but I was there and know that access was one of the most important concerns we had during the entire discussion.

Sean

I believe that you are sincere. Unfortunately, in my expirence, many folks (particularly those who bought into the idea of a "private community" with "private beaches") don't share your viewpoint. I hope that ya'll discover who was committing the burglies and get some justice. I know what it's like to get ripped off--it sucks. It takes a long time to "feel safe" again. Like you, I believe that limiting access does not increase security. I also believe (my opinion) that homeowners tend use security as tool to limit public access, which is wrong.

Are you saying that the main road (now called Hamilton Drive) did not exist prior to Oxford purchasing the land?

How did people get to the Sugar plantation in the 1700s prior to Oxford purchasing the land? The plantation was there way before you say that Oxford built the roads.

Hilarious. I'm simply hazarding a wild guess that people in the 18th century made their way by foot or by donkey along that rutted unkempt path through the bush. That's the daftest analogy I've read in a very long time. 300 years and several sovereignties later but now we're compelled to revisit the 18th century and simply slough off the intervening centuries?

I guess according to your assumption, product from a major sugar plantation was transported through the bushes and there wasn't any well kept pathways on island that allowed wheels to roll....smh.

I guess according to your assumption, product from a major sugar plantation was transported through the bushes and there wasn't any well kept pathways on island that allowed wheels to roll....smh.

Not at all.

Are you saying that the main road (now called Hamilton Drive) did not exist prior to Oxford purchasing the land?

How did people get to the Sugar plantation in the 1700s prior to Oxford purchasing the land? The plantation was there way before you say that Oxford built the roads.

Cruz, I have seen the cadastral reports and there is legal documentation that indicate that prior to the Oxford corporation building the roads they did not exist as they do today in any way shape or form. There may have been roads in Judith's Fancy when it was a sugar plantation but they were not in the same locations and were not the same roads that exist today. Anecdotally, I have met with someone who stated that he used to ride horses in JF when it was owned by the Morales family before it was sold to Oxford and that these roads did not exist, it was all fields by that point.

And I still would like to reiterate that irregardless of if these roads are public or private, no one I have spoken with at JF is looking to restrict access to the community beyond asking visitors to present ID in order to better protect residents of JF and our visitors alike.

Sean

Are you saying that the main road (now called Hamilton Drive) did not exist prior to Oxford purchasing the land?

How did people get to the Sugar plantation in the 1700s prior to Oxford purchasing the land? The plantation was there way before you say that Oxford built the roads.

Cruz, I have seen the cadastral reports and there is legal documentation that indicate that prior to the Oxford corporation building the roads they did not exist as they do today in any way shape or form. There may have been roads in Judith's Fancy when it was a sugar plantation but they were not in the same locations and were not the same roads that exist today. Anecdotally, I have met with someone who stated that he used to ride horses in JF when it was owned by the Morales family before it was sold to Oxford and that these roads did not exist, it was all fields by that point.

And I still would like to reiterate that irregardless of if these roads are public or private, no one I have spoken with at JF is looking to restrict access to the community beyond asking visitors to present ID in order to better protect residents of JF and our visitors alike.

Sean

I am not disagreeing that Oxford did build the majority of the current roads in order to develop the subdivision and the proposed hotel and marina that was never completed.

However, I find it hard to believe that the main road (Hamilton Rd/Dr) did not already exist prior to Oxford. And folks are claiming to have the cadastral map showing this, just like your claim that it didn't exist.

That road runs all the way to Northside Rd (Rte 75) and there is no logical explanation for that road to have dead end at the current gate location.

When I think back to the 80s or maybe the early 90s, I do not recall any security arms (gate) being used. There was just a security booth. I always found that strange and wondered why there were no gate or arms being used. I'm starting to think that the HOA knew back then what they were doing was wrong.

If you are so pumped up about this Cruz - go to cadastal and do the reseach!
Go all the way back to original plantation owners is that is available and follow the trail of ownerships and plot maps.
If you have an interest.

Cheese n bread!

Since we put our gate up on our private road last year we have had no trouble. (knock on wood)
Before the gate houses were being robbed every few months. We have been burglarized 3 times before the gate. My neighbor has been burglarized 6 times and my other neighbor twice. We have 3 house on our road.
We like our gate and feel safer since putting it in. Before we would have cars pulling down onto our private road looking to see what we had to steal. We were being cased everyday.
You have to protect yourself, putting in alarms,gates and fences.

Matt T, I wish we didn't have to spend all the money on gates, fences and alarms but living in harmony is not happening here. We do have a great community. We look out for each other but sometimes that isn't enough. 7 out of 10 houses in our community have been burglarized. Now most of our neighbors have gates, walls, fences and large dogs to keep them out. So far it is working.

We live near a very public beach and have alot of activity all day and night with people going to the beach area. I think the beach should be closed at night. Alot of crazy activity goes on there at night and some during the day.

I am of the opinion that visitors and guests actually make the community much safer while they spend time walking/jogging the community or spending time on the beach as they serve as ad hoc "eyes and ears" for odd going ons, and I expressed this opinion while meeting with the JF security comittee. I don't know how I can convince you of this, but I was there and know that access was one of the most important concerns we had during the entire discussion.

Sean

I believe that you are sincere. Unfortunately, in my expirence, many folks (particularly those who bought into the idea of a "private community" with "private beaches") don't share your viewpoint. I hope that ya'll discover who was committing the burglies and get some justice. I know what it's like to get ripped off--it sucks. It takes a long time to "feel safe" again. Like you, I believe that limiting access does not increase security. I also believe (my opinion) that homeowners tend use security as tool to limit public access, which is wrong.

Open debate of opposing positions? Conciliatory discourse sans personal attacks? Crikey, it is possibible on this forum - Well done sirs! 😎

Irregardless of whether there was a road there or not before the purchase, if it was not given to the Government as a public road, it remains private. Just find out if it was.

Open debate of opposing positions? Conciliatory discourse sans personal attacks? Crikey, it is possibible on this forum - Well done sirs! 😎

Thanks IslandHops, and blu4u as well.

Sean

Just popped in there today for a walk along the beach. Was asked for my name at the gate- nothing more.

I suppose it doesn't matter that anyone can walk into the neighborhood or go to the beaches. It is only vehicular traffic that is being closely monitored. Since when does driving on private roads become a "right"?

The deJongh administration and the Park Service have kept quiet because they have the only public road easement to the park. He spends $490,000 to pave "improperly" his driveway and nothing to pave this government road. What they don't say is this:
1. Requiring any ID or having gates on a public road is illegal. Period.the road is private and JF can ask for a strip search. They are asking for ID presentation only now.
2. The government stamped the deed to the road. The old Danish road stopped at doc James. The plantation used to have its own private driveway. A private driveway to the factory, not a public road
3. The pilings and yellow gates separating JF from the Salt River beach were put there by the Nat Park. So JF residents themselves are gated off from the park. The park is not their property. The park has their own easement to Bennie Benjamin drive across from Altona Baptist Church. That road connects to an unpaved strip of Gov VI roads. The park erected a tall green gate to keep the public off the beach.
4. The beach is overgrown with tall trees and would need chain saws to get in the water. A boat right now is the only access. No one who hasn't visited the sites or seen the cad astral drawings should comment any further.

By the way, Positive Nelson did not say anything about who owns the road or the requirement to show ID or not. He only said that the Open Shorelines Law provided for the right to be on the beach without the government providing land access to it, and that that (purchasing access roads) needed to be addressed. He also asked if the administration had a position regarding the roads and access to that or any other beach. He still gets my vote. His only wrong things this year were his support of the governor's sports complex scam artists plan and his support of a windfall for JFL's widow. Please leave the stickers on your car if the beach road is your only issue.

Crap - Now I'll have to peel of my "Positive" sticker 😎

Sorry stxfoodie the comment "peel the Positive sticker off and replace it with "Negative!" because that's the truth." was for Island Hops.
My mistake.

I laughed at that because I know both foodie and hoppy and there is NO FREAKIN' WAY that foodie would ever deface his car with a "Positive" sticker (which always make me think of AIDS PSAs anyway).