Life versus property

The case of the Trails End camping community in Shohola, PA (see “Trails End: a tragedy in the offing?” in last week’s issue) once again brings to the fore an issue that has appeared on this page time and again: the conflict between the right of individuals to have control over their own property and the rights of the other individuals in the community.

There is a paradox inherent in any rights deemed to be universal: precisely because they are universal—that is, because we have to recognize that all others have these rights as well as ourselves—they must have limits, because sometimes the rights of two people will conflict. That’s why there have to be laws and regulations, as well as rights. I can exercise my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness only to the extent that in doing so I do not infringe on your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

But that’s exactly the line the residents of Trails End appear to have crossed. No doubt they feel that they are minding their own business and wish that other members of the community would mind theirs. But if the letter sent to the campground by the township supervisors is to be believed, by standing in the way of fire safety inspections, residents of Trails End are allowing fire safety infractions to multiply and, with them, the likelihood of fire. Matters are made even more risky by the fact that there are apparently numerous old propane tanks on the property that can go off “like a shotgun” in a fire, in the words of Shohola fire chief Don Wall. The volunteer firefighters who must respond to these fires could literally lose their lives because the camping community is restricting access in a way that non-gated communities can’t.

Are property rights really that much more important than the right to life enshrined in the Declaration of Independence? Should volunteers, men and women who without recompense have made the choice to put their bodies in harm’s way for the sake of the lives—and yes, property—of others in the community, take the kind of unnecessary risk that restricted access to Trails End poses?

Of course, residents of Trails End may believe that there aren’t any infractions to be found. In that case, they have nothing to hide and the problem ought to disappear. Instead, the township has had to take the matter back to court for a contempt-of-court citation.

Lurking in the background of this issue is the question as to whether alterations have been made to structures on the property to convert it from its intended seasonal use to year-round use, at the same time putting unsustainable burdens on the electrical infrastructure. If so, this would be in defiance of ordinance—and the residents are not paying the taxes that such usage would entail.

Unfettered access by town officials would presumably give them the opportunity to settle once and for all whether this is taking place. We can only speculate as to whether this is why the campground is reluctant to provide such access, but it is clear that the matter, which has been a simmering problem for the township for years, needs to be cleared up.

If Trails End is indeed being used in part for permanent residences, that doesn’t necessarily mean that such usage should be stopped, especially given the shortage of affordable housing. But it does mean that the households in question would need to follow the same rules that their fellow townspeople do—including paying taxes as full-time residents and upgrading infrastructure as necessary. If they followed such rules, presumably the town government would no longer have a problem with them. But whether or not Trails End is strictly seasonal, it must provide officials full access to the area when and how they need it in order to ensure the safety, not only of firefighters and other emergency personnel, but of the Trails End residents themselves. No one has a right to put other people’s lives at risk.

Dr. Punnybone

Fat Free