Amazingly, there are places that you can not legally hike by yourself.
No dog, no horses, no bikes, no people.
One forest service plan tried to write in a rule that we could only camp one person per square mile. When pressed by me, they backed off some. My point : what does a family do ? Put a different kid in a different tent ...one per mile ! What about the parents...two tents a mile apart !
That really was in the draft travel management plan.
They push their logic to the limits and then can't answer simple questions. Seen that a lot. It's like they let summer students write their regulations.
That fits the view of some envirowacks who believe that "humanity is a virus infecting the Earth Mother Goddess Gaia." Even to the point of prohibiting hiking, camping, canoeing. People are not supposed to venture outside of their assigned "village".
It is an eminent domain issue this time, related generally to public/private property issues such as the ones on this thread.
Citizen comments were related to a proposed city taking of a house and lot for a public project that is one of the quasi-public quasi-private developments that are supposed to benefit the community. Nobody mentioned Kelo since that decision would support the City, but the testimony covered so many aspects and fundamental questions about eminent domain that it would have made a Supreme Court Justice dizzy.
No one got down to asking about whether a corporation is actually a private person even though it is called private since it does not have publicly traded stock yet the entire Native population of the region is stockholders. The development is supposed to aid the tourism industry, yet not everybody cares if another tourist ever rides by in a tourbus here in Disneyland North.