By Hammonton entering into a License Agreement it would appear as though Hammonton is claiming ownership of this "unnamed road" (?) Was Hammonton then responsible for this section of road's upkeep? If yes, would the $5,000 license agreement - 1) put money into Hammonton's coffers and 2) remove them from the financial cost of maintaining this road? If points 1 and 2 are correct it would be an initial and then ongoing financial benefit to Hammonton to walk away from responsibility and they may actually fight the State on reopening to the public. For Mr. Miller to pay $5,000 on the agreement and multi-thousands on the gate in good faith it may be financially costly for the State to unbind this License. Interesting stuff. I have never driven this road and I would be curious on how many vehicles were using this road on average. Certainly less than QBR, Hampton or Carranza I would think....interested to see how this all pans out. I hope cooler heads prevail as any damage done to the gate or his property in the meantime will certainly provide legal standing to his claim that his property was being used improperly prior to the gate being installed. (He had claimed quads and trucks driving off of sand roads into his property were causing damage). Let's see what the State's decision is.........
