TRACKS

No Related Genres

No Artists Found

More Artists Load All

No Albums Found

More Albums Load All

No Tracks Found

Genre not found

Artist not found

Album not found

Search results not found

Song not found

Kitteridge
In Houses In Trees Lyrics

No lyrics text found for this track.

The lyrics are frequently found in the comments by searching or by filtering for lyric videos

Most interesting comment from YouTube:

@binkysphinx

52w

My take on this situation has done a complete 180. I'm now firmly on the public's side, but I certainly can empathize with Romero/Eymer.

The original subdivision of the land 100 years ago would indicate that the creek's banks, at the time, defined the northern boundary of the property. The 1986 survey was not meant for the purposes of redefining boundaries, but it does indicate the process of avulsion (moving bodies of water affecting land use/property) had occurred sometime between original subdivision and 1986. In essence, the creek moved southward into the property boundary. There are well established laws and plenty of precedent across the country with regard to bodies of water which move and affect property boundaries.

The creek is a navigable body of water. Navigable isn't simply defined by whether a boat can float down it or not. Can the public swim in it? Can people fish in it? Those are just a couple of questions that would define a creek as navigable if affirmed positively. Bear Creek would absolutely be defined as a public natural resource because of this.

On top of that, the public has been accessing the creek on its northern side, (and possibly even from the south bank given a public street abuts the creek to the south, next to the Romero/Eymer property) for decades before and after the 1986 survey which shows the new flow of the creek.

I'd be curious what a recent survey indicates, whether the creek is continuing its move to the south based on a comparison with the 1986 survey. Photos of the area indicate the Romero/Eymer home sits atop a rather steep embankment/cutback, with no easy access to the creek itself, or any discernible shore to use the creek. In order to even utilize the northern slice of property, Romero/Eymer would need to climb down the steep embankment and then wade across the creek to get to it, or access the property via the park, just like everyone else.

Given the layout of the land in question, especially that steep embankment/cutbank, I would be FAR more concerned about where that creek is going to be in 30-40 years time. It looks like that large pine tree on top of the embankment already has exposed roots. If the creek continues its move to the south, that tree will come down, and the bank will erode further putting the driveway next to it and the foundations of the home itself in possible peril.

If it were my property and I planned to keep it, I'd start by immediately planting trees along that embankment to help stave off the obvious erosion, and settle with the county/town. I'd give them the north tip of the property in exchange for a refund of any property taxes paid on that portion of the land since purchase, riparian rights to the creek's southern bank, a county placed boundary fence at the north-end dead end of Alma Lane to prevent access to the rather dangerous south bank, and a permit granted to Eymer/Romero to construct a retaining wall on the south-side cutbank along with optional development to landscape their own access along the southern bank of the creek on their property, like a little dock or something.

All comments from YouTube:

@thibaultserlet6453

2y↑35

If the people who sold the house to her did not disclose the situation they should be liable

@IndigoVagrant

1y↑3

Usually there is some due diligence required by a purchaser or realtor when it comes to stuff like this. There is no "liability" because she has suffered no damages. Her "damages" are due to her perception that she can engage in private enclosure of the commons. Perceived damages are not actual damages.

@Nola333

49w

@Indigo Vagrant 😂😂😂 boy, are you wrong!!

@MangoStJohn

30w↑1

@@IndigoVagrantyou couldn’t be more wrong. America is a country of land owners. Not mobs.

@wutflex

2y↑48

I guarantee if you went to any of those people trying to use her land and said the government is going to take your backyard from you they would stand firmly in their backyard saying no you will not

@kayceeyou

2y↑3

I bet the former owners allowed it and now people just expect to walk wherever they want. I bet she has a victory in court.

@Anonymous-si2sm

1y↑2

Exactly it is a dangerous precedent to even consider. Legally it shouldn’t even be going to court because it’s unlawful to take someone’s private property

@mrfoodskater

LMFAO

@nicholascarlsonmuh7572

1y↑8

If the former owners allowed it for more than 18 years, it can become a vested property right or at least a right of access for the people who had been using it. That's the law, it goes back 2,000+ years to ancient Rome, and it's honestly her fault if she didn't do her due diligence before buying property. Her mistake doesn't justify overturning Colorado law or a legal concept that has existed for two millennia of Western property law.

7 More Replies...

@kristin5026

1y↑14

Plus the city owns their own access to creek in other side but don’t want to use that access point. Only hers where she owns land on BOTH sides of creek😊

@JamesKaufman1973

1y↑1

That's something I was wondering. In looking at the maps, it appears that even WITHOUT crossing her land, there is still access to the creek for the public. So why don't they just change how the public accesses the creek, to a different location?

@IndigoVagrant

1y↑2

The creek moved over time. Generally a public waterway still gets public access even if it moved, because the historical precedent of usage establishes the right to public use. She shouldn't have bought this property without doing her due diligence to see if it was something she would be comfortable with. Now she goes and complains on Tik Tok, which is full of narcissists with no self awareness seeking validation from other narcissists.

@binkysphinx

1y↑3

@@IndigoVagrant I have to disagree. Her property lines are not dictated by her but by the county which manages how land is subdivided and zoned for use. Those boundaries are cut and dried in that 1986 survey. If the county seizes her land and or orders her to continue to let the public use it as an extension of the park, then should the next property owner with land to the west along the creek start worrying about losing his property as well if the public decides to keep encroaching towards the west?

@danni1993

2y↑16

I imagine the real estate agent showed her the property in the colder months, or during the school season when kids are in school.
She bought a nice serene, quiet place to enjoy nature and peaceful life.
Then, to her shock, comes the loud, screaming kids, feces all over, discarded garbage, too-loud music, dogs running around, beer cans, and drunk visitors, that would drive anyone crazy.
She bought and paid for that serene piece of property, and it belongs to HER, not the previous owner, or the city.
If the judge rules against her...that's just unAmerican.

@mariaalejandragutierrez7954

2y↑2

That's exactly what happened! It's all on her tiktok

@danni1993

@@mariaalejandragutierrez7954
Did she win her property back?

@TC-nd9sj

2y↑1

@@danni1993 - the case hasn't been in front of the judge yet

@danni1993

@@TC-nd9sj
TY.

@carolinemorgan5741

That’s not even mentioning that people have knocked over her trees

3 More Replies...

@Anestary

2y↑18

She's 100% right people think they own this world this isn't their world this is our world and all these people do that camp on land and leave trash behind and act like vagrants don't deserve to share our streams what happened to keeping Colorado clean obviously none of those Park goers got the motto and then law enforcement won't even do their part

@pvyll4627

1y↑4

BS. She didnt' do her due diligence. Rights of way for public access thru private land is as old as the Constitution & rooted in common law. She visited the home for 30m before buying & not checking out right-of-ways, etc. A first year law student could tell you 35 yrs of public access probably trumps this nitwit's claim.

@Anestary

@@pvyll4627 idk but I'd say file for it to be re vegetated or hire some landscapers to plant some bushes out there is that legal

@linabina4832

1y↑3

@@pvyll4627 right of way for public access is out of necessity for community needs (ex is transportation). It’s Not to give the community access to go sunning and trash the place. There is no easement agreement or requirement of her property or no lawyer would have taken her case. What’s worse is having her pay taxes and putting her in a liability position.

@JR-iv8bp

Yeah like this ** thinks she owns the creek. LMAO

@jonmcgowan

21w

On the north shore of Lake Superior there used to be public access to a river on private land that had trout and salmon runs. I fished it many times. After too many inconsiderate people left trash on the private property the property owner closed it off. I was disappointed but at the same time totally understand the property owners right. If people don't even respect the land why should you allow them to continue to trash it and disrespect you in your rights?

@JamesKaufman1973

1y↑13

It's got nothing to do with people's feelings. Property disputes are settled through documentation, period. Deeds, property descriptions, etc. A simple look at the Jefferson County GIS system clearly shows that the creek runs through her property, not that specific section of the park. Kittredge Park DOES HAVE part of the creek running through it, closer to the road and a parking lot. The county can use the property THEY OWN, rather than harassing a private land owner.

@kayceeyou

2y↑27

Love how people are mad at her but completely disrespect the land by leaving trash, feces and destroying it. Typical....

@MsQ275

2y↑10

I could not agree more, the levels of disrespect here are jaw dropping. I thought CO was a solid AMERICAN state. I'm rethinking that.

@pvyll4627

1y↑1

@@MsQ275 Frankly you're just uneducated concerning property law that's been in existence before CO was a state.

@Thanatos_808

1y↑4

whats sadly hilarious is shes inheriting the vitriol from a dog park they lost. Why'd they lose a dog park you ask? oh the communtiy couldnt be assed to clean up after their pets like the rules say so nearby homeowners where fed up with the smell.

@IndigoVagrant

1y↑1

Thats a problem with any common use area in this country. That has to do with the culture of Americans. To be fair though, she has only claimed people were doing those things, it is not actually documented.

3 More Replies...

@Mj159lola

40w↑1

She won the county paid for part of the access to the creek. She got to keep a good chunk for herself and got $250k :D yay for her

@QOP13

2y↑9

Isn’t it the whole point of buying a single family home to own that land not share if their going to use it by force they should at least help her pay the mortgage. The easier route was to buy the land off her like she asked not give some bs number that way below value. What problematic about this if the city wins it going to open new loophole for people land to be taken by force by the government.

@Anonymous-si2sm

1y↑9

You can’t take someone’s land from them it doesn’t matter how long public had been using it prior to sale and if the town wanted it for the park they could have asked to buy that piece of the property when it went up for sale. For a judge to take someone’s land because the town wants it would be illegal and would set a very dangerous precedent.

@pvyll4627

1y↑10

BS. She's a grifter asking rubes pay for her mistake. She didnt' do her due diligence. Rights of way for public access thru private land is as old as the Constitution & rooted in common law. She visited the home for 30m before buying & not checking out right-of-ways, etc. A first year law student could tell you 35 yrs of public access probably trumps this nitwit's claim.

@Dylan-bl5dt

1y↑7

It was never her land in the first place… that’s the point.

@ablaze1989

1y↑1

@@Dylan-bl5dt The creek was in one spot when the land was divided up, the creek moved. I don't see any reason why that should change who owns the land

@ablaze1989

1y↑1

@@pvyll4627 Also this all started because of liability reasons if some kid drowns or gets hurt in that creek 100% she's getting sued not the local government.

2 More Replies...

@Golden-us3hj

1y↑2

Sounds like whoever sold the house or property should be liable for vague specifications of what guidelines she must follow, she was probably under the guise that the river access was hers and only hers, thus if the salesman stated that she must share it she might have not bought the property. Even more of an issue is that the realtor industry needs a lot of work and oversight

@JoseLopez-ly8ds

1y↑2

What part did you not understand that previous owners gave PERMISSION ON THERE PROPERTY! New owners and they give no PERMISSION! it's that simple! And legally the property is her! This situation is monumental! If her right and property is taken away it set up for future cases that government can TAKE YOUR LAND! And if that happens then you have no RIGHTS OR FREEDOM! I mean is this American or is this North Korea??? Entitlements and belief cannot Trump your constitutional God given right! 🤦🤦🤦

@IndigoVagrant

@@JoseLopez-ly8ds That isn't how property law works. You should do some studying on the subject. You cannot revoke access to a public waterway once there is a historical precedent in place giving the public access to it. She may be entitled to some financial compensation, but she will lose this lawsuit because the community interest governments access to public waterways, not private interests. Particularly when she isn't even from that community, she just shows up and raises hell, posts a bunch on Tik Tok to feed her narcissism. That doesn't fly well in Colorado, if you don't like a public waterway being on your land, you should buy land that doesn't have a public waterway on it.

@tinyshack.yoderco20

1y↑6

I will say she's 100% in the right and completely has the right to deny access to her land. With that said, Colorado has basically been surrendered over to wealthier land owners and people are exhausted and tired of having their communities bought out from under them so I can completely empathize with both sides on this.

@JR-iv8bp

1y↑3

She's 100% wrong.

@IndigoVagrant

1y↑1

And 100%, she is going to lose this lawsuit and have a court order to leave alone people using the public creek.

@jamiegarzon4251

50w

@@IndigoVagrant looks like it didn't happen....

@classicclassi6146

1y↑5

Another reason tik tok needs to die. You don't need validation for this. You see the problems that emerge when people become OBSESSED with the protection of what is called private property

@IndigoVagrant

1y↑2

Tik Tok, where narcissists go for validation.

@KarenSEFamily

30w↑2

If I was blindsided by that, I would setup a booth where everyone signs a release of liability and a $10 pass with a $250 fine for littering.

@okieg8960

21w

Then get immediately sued for not having permits

@isabellam1936

1y↑9

From an outsiders perspective it is her land. That’s also a lot of very loud noise. People were digging. People were leaving trash. Imagine if someone came and did that not even on your property but right next door to you and you had a neighbor from hell but instead she has thousands of neighbors from hell. I don’t know how the previous owner put up with it all those years, I know I couldn’t. I would have moved out. I couldn’t live in a community that hated me so intensely either so I were her I would have moved out by now. But she has every right to stay and fight for her home. The community should come together and buy any land that goes up for sale with a creek on it and make it into a public park.

@IndigoVagrant

1y↑1

She shouldn't have bought the property obviously. Some people enjoy having the public around their property, but this Tik Tok lady obviously suffers from narcissistic personality disorder and has an adverse reaction to the public.

@mikemaloney7943

1y↑2

@@IndigoVagrant the property was advertised as riverfront, the previous owner mislead her.

@MangoStJohn

30w

They could take it for a road, or a school, but not a “park”!!!!

@Terraplaneblues

36w

Just float down the river on a raft or canoewhen the waters high enough. Perfectly legal

@abella981

51w↑1

The way y'all have portrayed her shame on you

@cbwright74

1y↑12

There aren’t two sides to this story. Private property ownership is a cornerstone of individual liberty. The government and the public have NO right to it.

@nicholascarlsonmuh7572

1y↑4

Adverse possession goes back to ancient Rome, so there are more than 2,000 years of precedent saying the public and government may very well have a right to it depending on the specific facts.

@IndigoVagrant

1y↑5

You obviously don't understand right of ways and common use areas. It's a longstanding part of common law and the Constitution. You cannot claim ownership of a public creek that passes through your land, it is automatically a public easement in Colorado and many Western/midwestern states. If you don't like it, don't live here.

@binkysphinx

1y↑3

If it were a case where kittredge park users didn’t have access to the creek from the park, I might understand the adverse possession argument, only they DO have access, they simply have been extending that access to the creek along its shores by trespassing on her property to do so.

@StellasMom0912

51w

@@IndigoVagrant right of way does not mean they can use the property to hang out it means they can just move through it. The creek may be public but the land (banks and bottoms) can be privately owned. So as long as they can float down it without touching any land they’re ok but as soon as they touch land be it on the banks or bottom they are trespassing. If your “common use area” is referring to common law/constitutional easement of necessity it wouldn’t apply here because there is access to the creek from other areas. This would be a convenience easement but that doesn’t exist.

@MangoStJohn

30w

@@IndigoVagrantare you talking about high-water marks?

@donmulder8061

1y↑8

We bought 4 acres in the country and we have a small stream on our land. The house next door sold 6 months after us then the new couple that moved in started acting like they owned the land adjacent to the stream. First we resurveyed the boundary, then we added fence posts so as not to affect wildlife with a fence, then we had to complete the fence for most of the boundary except the stormwater easement at the front by the road. I started working daily on this land then found a buried plastic downspout extension from the house next door and asked them to move it. they said they would in the future but I could tell they werent going to do it. I then asked them if they'd sign a permission letter but they acted like I was crazy for asking them that after they agreed to move it. No lawyer has taken me on as this is just a pain in the butt and doesnt offer them much money. I suspect I will lose this land. I love it. The home next door has made their property adjacent to our streambank a militarized zone with German shepherds and cameras and they never leave the property unattended so they can watch me and come out with the dog whenever I go in there. I found another buried plastic pipe on my land from the previous owner as well. I am losing sleep over this. Private property is a corner stone of American life. These laws are terrible.

@saskialolita

I’m confused…. So who are you in this story— the woman claiming the creek is her private property or the county/public claiming it’s public land subject to public access?

@donmulder8061

1y↑1

@@saskialolita No I am a private land owner with a small, non-navigable stream on my property. the property boundary is on the far side of the stream so we have a piece of land locked land on the opposite side of the creek. Our home is 3 years old but the house next door is 12 years old. We found two buried pipes - one of which is recently exposed by the new neighbors. They act like they own this land. I have been trying to protect it and prevent adverse possession but the pipe they exposed is still there. The other pipe they have on our land is buried and behind our fence so not sure who the law will see that. I may just move it.

@binkysphinx

1y↑1

Build something on that side of the land something simple… maybe a zipline pole.

@donmulder8061

1y↑1

@@binkysphinx that's a great idea. Zipline wont work but maybe a birdhouse on a pole and a bench. Thanks

@LouLope

2y↑31

What's so confusing about this? This is a private property, and on top of that used by irresponsible strangers, end of story. If the judge rules in the county's favor, her supporters should band together and trash, light fires and shit on the judge's property.

@danni1993

2y↑2

🤔😂

@pvyll4627

1y↑6

@binkysphinx

1y↑1

One problem I keep seeing in comments left by users on this issue is the failure of them to understand that access to the creek is NOT restricted from the park itself whatsoever. Residents are free to access the creek along a wide swath of the park’s southern edge. Her land is adjacent to the park on the west side and park visitors are walking west along the creek onto her property and quite literally using her backyard as an impromptu extension of the town’s park. Based on the town’s 1986 survey of the property, the gal looks to be in the right. There are numerous properties along the creek both commercial and residential. I doubt any single one of them would want the public to be using that property for picnics and dog walks either if for no other reason than to prevent liability lawsuits. As it stands, if a child were to drown in the creek while on her property, she could be sued, not the city. Put yourself in her shoes. To make this right, the town should create a walking path next to the creek and fence her backyard in at the towns expense. She should also be refunded property taxes and the value of the land she bought which she can no longer use privately.

4 More Replies...

@mikemaloney7943

1y↑3

The biggest issue here is that she tried to compromise at first, but the community took advantage and it was to much. Probably the reason why the previous owner bailed.

@DeRocco21

21w

she has every right to keep them off

@binkysphinx

52w↑1

Man, I'll tell ya, Jefferson Co. map archive of the area is so screwed up. If Romero has any chance at all, it's to highlight the fact that the county itself doesn't seem to know exactly where property lines start and end with regard to the creek. For example, the neighbor to the northwest across the creek, and to the immediate west of the park, has a 4 parcel linked property. with a bed and breakfast that's quite lovely. If you look at the parcel boundary maps superimposed with satellite images, you can see the B&B developed land that's part of the creek as their own private property. Makes no sense.

@zacharywheat6371

1y↑12

People like her are the reason I understand why the Soviets needed reeducation camps lol

@ablaze1989

1y↑1

Yeah because when you buy something for your self everyone has a right to share what you paid for.

@zacharywheat6371

1y↑3

@@ablaze1989 I paid for my slaves... Why does everyone claim they should have a right to own themselves? They didn't pay for themselves, I did, and I worked hard for the money to buy them...

Not all things should be up for purchase. Land used by the public is among those things.

@BookJay35

1y↑10

It's quite simple it's her land regardless of how and who used it before she bought it makes no difference she reserves the right to do whatever she wants with it and it's a huge liability if someone comes on to her property and drowns then she's going to get sued it's all good until something bad happens.

@pvyll4627

1y↑2

@StellasMom0912

51w↑2

@@pvyll4627 rights of way means to pass through. Get from point A to point B. It doesn’t grant permission to use the land as a hang out spot. “Constitutional common area law” I assume you’re referring constitutional easement of necessity which doesn’t apply here because you can access the creek from other places not just her property. The creek can 100% be public property but the land (banks and bottom) can be 100% privately owned. So if you can float in it without touching any land you’re fine but as soon as you touch land you’re trespassing.

1 More Replies...

@happydog6537

2y↑4

She’s a smart lady. Just keep bringing up the woman thing people love victimhood. If you can make it about race even better. Use their BS against them. Or transgender rights somehow. But if you can make it about a woman of color somehow you’re all set.

@therealmarshalldavis

51w↑2

Well she just got 250k cash from the county so she can stop crying now. Hope it works out 😬 what’s funny is now she’s got 250k and then can just sell and laugh all the way to the bank. 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

@adamweinberger6816

1y↑3

Property right is more important.

@binkysphinx

52w

@MangoStJohn

30w

That’s because the “Community” is DEAD WRONG.

@MrsLivingston2021

Any update on this yet?

@Thanatos_808

1y↑1

Judge is finally gonna look at it.

@IndigoVagrant

1y↑3

Probably going to lose, there is no legal or community precedent in her favor.

@anniehills3580

34w

Those people are showing their TRUE COLORS!!! BS

@TBGmario

51w↑2

Shiit if I bought the property and it’s my land, stay tf out

@TheSecondAngel

1y↑9

She has main character syndrome

@IndigoVagrant

1y↑1

Typical Tik Tok user, narcissists all of them.

@TheSecondAngel

1y↑3

@@IndigoVagrant bro like really like the lady who keeps saying teacher killed those college students but even when there was proof there wasn’t she couldn’t take it and keep lying

1 More Replies...

@happydog6537

2y↑4

Why are you sitting so far away from her. I know this is upsetting to the media but Covid it is over it’s been exaggerated and ridiculous the whole time the magical vaccine the whole thing enough already.

@MsQ275

I was wondering the same thing... this must be in the ultra liberal front range. So so so so so so glad I'm outta there. ❤️🙏

@harryjames5904

1y↑2

she probably moved there from New York aka Yankee

@theonlyone3532

1y↑4

This woman is such a witch. Taking away public land enjoyed for generations by others is just wrong.

We ought to have a say on what parts of property can be private.

@NinjitsuHiboshi

45w↑1

You must be one of the trespassers lol, you seem pressed.

@theonlyone3532

45w↑3

@@NinjitsuHiboshi "lol you seem pressed when public, park land is grabbed by private owners and then taken away."

No shit im mad. It sucks. And you are a sucker if you think this is acceptable behavior. There are already so few public places people can spend the day without also spending money. To reduce that for selfish reasons is just tyrant behavior. Hope the worst for this woman.

4 More Replies...

@christalmixon361

2y↑10

I came here and did no research....about the community and where I was living....whaaa.....

@kellyredmond3355

2y↑18

Lol. When you buy a house do you ask if the community uses it? Umm no, that’s no normal. It should have been disclosed to her at the very least.

@nicholascarlsonmuh7572

1y↑1

@@kellyredmond3355If it wasn't disclosed to her, then maybe she should sue her lawyer or realtor who didn't do due diligence, don't get mad at the public.

@IndigoVagrant

@@kellyredmond3355 In Colorado, yes. If you want land that adjacent to public spaces, you would do your research to know what that entails. Our state is very proud of it's common spaces and the promotion of enjoyment of public outdoor spaces. When someone attempts to enact a private enclosure in a hostile manner that goes against the community, you can expect a backlash. She is obviously a narcissist, posting on Tik Tok for validation.

@politicaltroll8920

1y↑1

I cannot believe people are seriously defending this lady

@SCP_Bright

50w↑2

I can't believe there are people like you who are demanding access to private property.

@Mj159lola

40w

She won :D

1 More Replies...

@velour2232

1y↑2

Her reasons to say "no" aren't valid. She must come up with a more valid reason.

@Nate_o_eight

1y↑4

She doesn't need a reason to say no. It's her land. They can access the river through the navigable water way rules only. There was no Easement on the deed so she is protecting her land.

@velour2232

@@Nate_o_eight I totally agree with you on that point. That's the main reason why she has to say no. But she didn't use that argument. She used other reasons and I thought they were quite lame.

@JoseLopez-ly8ds

Are you against your constitutional God given right???

@velour2232

@@JoseLopez-ly8ds No. Why?

@IndigoVagrant

1y↑1

@@Nate_o_eight It's a public waterway next to public land, where people historically had unfettered access. You can't just revoke access suddenly, do some research on property and common law.

5 More Replies...

@jamesw5696

1y↑4

Sry the public, and community sucks! Show respect if it's privately owned. If you attack, start treating it like yours and pollute it, with shiting and garbage ect. Yes, right to throw all you out!

More Comments

just now