In response to the recent letter to the editor, Regarding the Rock Road Pathway, January 6, 2026.

I appreciate Mary Orear’s recent letter and her concern for both public and private interests. I share that goal. As someone whose property is directly affected by the Rock Road discussion, I want to add a perspective that has largely been missing from recent articles and commentary.

Many of us who live along the Lily Pond corridor are not opposed to community trails, nor are we dismissive of history. We understand why people care about the old Rock Road. For generations, neighbors have walked informally through these woods with a shared understanding that the land was privately owned and that access existed through courtesy and mutual respect. That balance has long been part of how Maine works and will hopefully continue.

What has changed in the last few months is not the history, but how the present is being described.

Some recent commentary refers to a “historical right-of-way” or a “shared common way.”  People may feel a strong sense of connection to the path based on long familiarity or community connection. But a public right-of-way is a specific legal designation that limits landowners rights to their land, and no such public way is currently recorded across properties in Rockport. Separately, questions about whether the Town might assert ownership of any portion of the land are unresolved, and a claim ownership alone does not automatically create a public right-of-way. These ideas should not be blended together.

In recent weeks, the old Rock Road corridor has also been described as if it is already public land. That has not been legally established. The Town has acknowledged that it may or may not have a claim, and that the matter remains unresolved. Until it is resolved, the land remains what it has been for roughly the last 100 years: privately owned, recorded by deed, and taxed as private property. Families bought their homes on that basis, relying on the same public records system that protects all property owners.

There is an important difference between land that might someday be determined to be public, and land that is public today. When that distinction is blurred, it affects privacy, property values, and basic expectations about who is responsible for and in control of the land.

I join others in encouraging Rockport to act clearly and decisively—one way or the other. If the Town believes it has a valid claim, it should pursue it openly and promptly. If it does not, or determines that pursuing such a claim is not in the town’s best interest, it should say so just as clearly. What is difficult for landowners is an open-ended period where uncertainty lingers while the land is increasingly treated as public in practice.

This does not need to be adversarial. It is possible to value community access, environmental stewardship, and history while also respecting the rights of the people who own and pay taxes on the land in question. Those interests are only in conflict if private ownership is treated as provisional before any decision has been made.

I hope future discussion reflects that balance: respect for history, respect for process, and respect for the families whose homes and backyards are directly affected. Any long-term vision for the Rock Road should begin with clarity about what is public and what is private today—not by assuming the answer in advance.

Rob Danegger lives in Rockport