The city absolutely does not have to notify you before they dig up your yard to service underground lines. This is local government were talking about, they do whatever they want. Around here, if your tree limbs are hanging out over the road, they come trim them back. The tree is yours and is on your land, but they still do it anyway. It sounds like you advocate for a very libertarian form of land ownership, but unless you live in the absolute middle of nowhere, what you are talking about doesn't exist, and if you did live somewhere like that there would be no need for a road sign because nobody would ever drive by it and see it.
It would be nice if they were required to notify about things like this, but a few months ago, the city decided that the fire hydrants in my grandparents neighborhood were too old and needed to be replaced with a modern one. Well, wouldn't you know it, they were out there in my grandparents yard at 8am, no notice at all (retired people, they would have seen it) digging them all up. They destroyed about 5 square yards of pristine St Augustine grass with their digging and put ruts all through the front yard with their trucks and there isn't a thing that can be done about it.
As for your complaints about the use of "might" and "should" I did stop and respond briefly to your bit about this sign in this particular hurting someone in a way you feel is justified, but the big picture of this whole discussion, and why I originally responded to that guy in the first place was about his statements of what the law should be and what rights he should have. The "might" and "should" have nothing to do with this particular sign, they have to do with the repercussions of boobytraps at large. If boobytraping your property was legal and 200,000 pedes went out and did it, the arguments I made for why this is and should remain illegal come into play. Laws that are written to govern everyone have to consider what happens if everyone participates.
Also, this last bit is not aimed at you, just an observation, but for a website that has spammed "Law and Order" for months, there is a lot of advocating for unlawful behavior and pushing a very anarchist mindset in this thread.
The fact that the local government does whatever it wants is not a convincing argument against a landowner's right to do whatever he wants with his own property.
The city absolutely does not have to notify you before they dig up your yard to service underground lines. This is local government were talking about, they do whatever they want. Around here, if your tree limbs are hanging out over the road, they come trim them back. The tree is yours and is on your land, but they still do it anyway. It sounds like you advocate for a very libertarian form of land ownership, but unless you live in the absolute middle of nowhere, what you are talking about doesn't exist, and if you did live somewhere like that there would be no need for a road sign because nobody would ever drive by it and see it.
It would be nice if they were required to notify about things like this, but a few months ago, the city decided that the fire hydrants in my grandparents neighborhood were too old and needed to be replaced with a modern one. Well, wouldn't you know it, they were out there in my grandparents yard at 8am, no notice at all (retired people, they would have seen it) digging them all up. They destroyed about 5 square yards of pristine St Augustine grass with their digging and put ruts all through the front yard with their trucks and there isn't a thing that can be done about it.
As for your complaints about the use of "might" and "should" I did stop and respond briefly to your bit about this sign in this particular hurting someone in a way you feel is justified, but the big picture of this whole discussion, and why I originally responded to that guy in the first place was about his statements of what the law should be and what rights he should have. The "might" and "should" have nothing to do with this particular sign, they have to do with the repercussions of boobytraps at large. If boobytraping your property was legal and 200,000 pedes went out and did it, the arguments I made for why this is and should remain illegal come into play. Laws that are written to govern everyone have to consider what happens if everyone participates.
Also, this last bit is not aimed at you, just an observation, but for a website that has spammed "Law and Order" for months, there is a lot of advocating for unlawful behavior and pushing a very anarchist mindset in this thread.
The fact that the local government does whatever it wants is not a convincing argument against a landowner's right to do whatever he wants with his own property.