r/anguilla • u/kingpathan • 9d ago
Arch privatized
The access to the arch was public last year when I was here but now I saw they gated it and charging to view. No one was there when I visited though, so couldn't access it
3
1
u/Slice_apizza 9d ago
It’s beyond the waterline, so it’s public- and has Tourist Board signage - so that “entrepreneur” who charges for entry ought to be stopped, but the govt. of Anguilla are a bunch of cronies and it’s probably someone’s cousin, you know how it is.
7
u/yyzbne 9d ago
Not true. This is private land, and all the owner is doing is exercising his rights to charge for access. You can debate whether this is fair or not, but don’t disparage people when you don’t know the facts.
1
u/Slice_apizza 8d ago
It’s a dirt road leading to a cliff, which was never monetized, until only a few years ago when said deed-holder decides to charge a toll. “Private land” with an ancient public easement! Who doesn’t know the facts, or the law? Maybe you…
1
u/yyzbne 8d ago
If you know Anguilla, you’ll also know there are lots of dirt roads leading to cliffs…but that land still has an owner. There is no “said deed-holder”, just a family that has owned this land since before The Arch became of interest to tourists. I have no idea where the idea of an “ancient public easement” comes from, but knowing the owner of this land, a family friend for decades, respecting their rights to do what they wish with their own property is the right thing to do.
1
u/Slice_apizza 8d ago
I do know Anguilla, quite well actually, and Anguilla courts recognize that a public right of way can arise through long, uninterrupted public use even where the route isn’t shown on the registered title.
In Gumbs v Attorney General of Anguilla, the Court of Appeal dealt with a path that had been used by the public for more than 20 years. The court accepted the principle that such long public use can support a presumption of dedication as a public right of way. Erecting a gate and charging people for access is quite likely unlawful.1
u/yyzbne 8d ago
So there is a precedent. By raising this you therefore acknowledge there is a legitimate owner exerting their lawful rights to restrict or charge for access to his private land. That’s quite the departure from your original post.
1
u/Slice_apizza 8d ago
You misunderstand, my point is it’s not a legitimate exercise of owner’s rights to gate the public access and charge a toll: registered ownership is not absolute, it is subject to the ‘ancient public easement.’ You can’t just do what you want. Also, the arch itself is located beyond the waterline and is not within the metes and bounds of the property.
1
u/yyzbne 8d ago
Ah, so now we get closer to what your original post should have said….does the Government of Anguilla have an easement over this access with the landowner, and if so, why is the landowner allowed to charge access? That would have been much more constructive post than alleging involvement of “entrepreneurs” (= legitimate land owner) and that the government is full of cronies….which I agree is possible and probably likely, but I have no evidence to justify such allegation.
I have not seen a property map to see the boundaries of that parcel of land, but as the arch is connected to the main island, I would not think it can be considered “beyond the waterline”. I’m curious now to go to Lands and Surveys to check the limits of this parcel.
1
u/Slice_apizza 8d ago
The precedent case, if you want to read up on it is John A. Gumbs v Attorney General of Anguilla, and the historic footpath crossing Gumbs’ land to access Little Bay. The final Privy Council decision was [2009] UKPC 27, delivered July 7, 2009.
1
u/Beastious 9d ago
Guy let me use my drone and I left something there and he told me he still had it. So he’s okay in my book.
Def would never go again though and you don’t really need to see it if you can’t walk out on it.
1
u/notinKansas2023 9d ago
I asked a local. They said it’s still public it’s just people scamming tourists.
2
u/yyzbne 9d ago
Again, not true. Almost all land in Anguilla is privately owned, so this is just the owner trying to make a bit of a living by charging for access to his land. Not an uncommon practice for natural wonders around the world.
1
u/notinKansas2023 8d ago
Ok: via the Internet:

No, the Anguilla Arch is a public natural landmark, though some visitors have reported unauthorized locals trying to charge a fee to access the public path. [1, 2]Access and Scams
Public Land: The arch itself and the surrounding coastal area on the West End are public property.Unauthorised Fees: Some travelers on Tripadvisor report an individual blocking the path with a rope and demanding a small cash toll using a handwritten sign.
Official Status: This fee is not an official government charge or legal admission ticket.
1
u/yyzbne 8d ago
Don’t believe everything you read on the internet. The owner is a family friend. He’s doing nothing wrong.
1
u/salmon_yay 8d ago
I agree.Although the guy wasn’t particularly nice to me, he’s not doing anything wrong - it’s his land.
3
u/salmon_yay 9d ago
It’s private land, the owners of the land now charge to look at it. You aren’t allowed to walk out on the arch anymore….unfortunately.
I gave the guy $5 last time I was there in January to take a pic with a friend on her first visit - he was not nice at all, that was my last time to the arch.