Provides relative to access to enclosed cemeteries (OR SEE FISC NOTE LF EX)
The implications of HB 139 are significant as it seeks to restore and ensure public access to historic cemeteries that might otherwise become isolated due to property development or ownership disputes. By mandating that landowners facilitate access, the bill aims to protect cultural heritage and ensure that individuals can visit and honor their ancestors buried in these forgotten places. It repeals previous limitations on the enforcement of access to such cemeteries based on parish population, thus broadening the bill's applicability across various jurisdictions in Louisiana.
House Bill 139 addresses the issue of access to enclosed historic cemeteries by imposing obligations on the owners of adjacent properties. It stipulates that these owners must grant a voluntary right of passage to individuals wishing to access the cemeteries, which must be situated within 400 feet of a public road. The proposed law recognizes the right of passage for non-commercial purposes and allows for limitations regarding the times and paths for access. Failure to comply with these provisions can result in civil penalties as well as potential criminal charges for willful obstruction.
Overall, sentiment surrounding HB 139 appears to lean towards support for the preservation of historic cemeteries and ensuring public access rights. Many stakeholders, including heritage conservationists and historical societies, likely view this legislation favorably as it aligns with efforts to protect and honor Louisiana's historical sites. However, concerns may arise from property owners who fear potential liabilities associated with granting passage or those unhappy with the imposed regulations on their property rights.
Controversy may stem from the balance between property rights and public access. While the bill explains the conditions under which property owners can limit access, it also outlines significant penalties for non-compliance. The potential for criminal charges against those who obstruct access may be perceived as a heavy-handed approach. Stakeholders in rural areas might particularly express concerns regarding the practical implications of enforcing such public access in light of local customs and land management practices.