Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
General questoin on "property rights"
14 views
Skip to first unread message
Bernie Cosell
Jun 22, 2019, 12:47:36 AM6/22/19
to
I am often annoyed by people claiming some thing or another is a "violation
of their property rights". I argue back that there's basically no such
thing. What you can and cannot do with "your property" isn't some magic
right, but a matter of how and what your state [and the feds] chooses to
allow for property you own. My guess is that you can't look back to
"common law" for principles, because back-then, didn't the King own
everything and granted permission to land at his pleasure, yes?
In the US, I'm not exactly sure how it all works. I gather that various
kings inherently "owned" all the lands in the Americas and granted various
companies and such permission to use the land. This crossed my mind when I
was thinking about how the colonies were basically tendered to companies
[The Dutch East Asia company came to mind, and then I ran across "The
Charter of 1606, also known as the First Charter of Virginia, is a document
from King James I of England to the Virginia Company assigning land rights
to colonists for the stated purpose of propagating the Christian
religion"].
I assume that at some point [part of the Treaty of Paris, perhaps?]
some/all land in US was turned over to the newly-then-independent country.
So all the land started as "federal" land???? When/how/towhatextent did
the various states gain "ownership" of the land? I don't know much about
the homestead act, but AFAIK it was *federal* land that was directly passed
to individuals, yes? At some point did that 'ownership' become subject to
state regulation?
Is there some basic kinda-categorical statement one can make about what
"property rights". Do states [or individuals???] have control of the "air
rights" over their land? Does, for example, the drinking age on board a
cross country flight vary as the plane flies over various states?
Another thing I was thinking about: if you're one of the people on the
Southern border that Trump is planning to eminent-domain your land for the
border wall: but what about the states. Can the federal government
nationalize the land directly, or does the state have to be involved.
[e.g., the state take it first from the state-resident and then the feds
take it from the state]
Sorry this is so disorganized. I clearly don't understand the whole
business of "property rights" but it seems very complicated, making me even
more skeptical about all the claims of "property rights" I see people
throwing around.
Is there some reasonably accurate but not too couched in obscure legalese
about how this all actually works in modern-day USA?
/Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
ber...@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep <--
of their property rights". I argue back that there's basically no such
thing. What you can and cannot do with "your property" isn't some magic
right, but a matter of how and what your state [and the feds] chooses to
allow for property you own. My guess is that you can't look back to
"common law" for principles, because back-then, didn't the King own
everything and granted permission to land at his pleasure, yes?
In the US, I'm not exactly sure how it all works. I gather that various
kings inherently "owned" all the lands in the Americas and granted various
companies and such permission to use the land. This crossed my mind when I
was thinking about how the colonies were basically tendered to companies
[The Dutch East Asia company came to mind, and then I ran across "The
Charter of 1606, also known as the First Charter of Virginia, is a document
from King James I of England to the Virginia Company assigning land rights
to colonists for the stated purpose of propagating the Christian
religion"].
I assume that at some point [part of the Treaty of Paris, perhaps?]
some/all land in US was turned over to the newly-then-independent country.
So all the land started as "federal" land???? When/how/towhatextent did
the various states gain "ownership" of the land? I don't know much about
the homestead act, but AFAIK it was *federal* land that was directly passed
to individuals, yes? At some point did that 'ownership' become subject to
state regulation?
Is there some basic kinda-categorical statement one can make about what
"property rights". Do states [or individuals???] have control of the "air
rights" over their land? Does, for example, the drinking age on board a
cross country flight vary as the plane flies over various states?
Another thing I was thinking about: if you're one of the people on the
Southern border that Trump is planning to eminent-domain your land for the
border wall: but what about the states. Can the federal government
nationalize the land directly, or does the state have to be involved.
[e.g., the state take it first from the state-resident and then the feds
take it from the state]
Sorry this is so disorganized. I clearly don't understand the whole
business of "property rights" but it seems very complicated, making me even
more skeptical about all the claims of "property rights" I see people
throwing around.
Is there some reasonably accurate but not too couched in obscure legalese
about how this all actually works in modern-day USA?
/Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
ber...@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep <--
Stuart O. Bronstein
Jun 22, 2019, 2:58:52 PM6/22/19
to
Bernie Cosell <ber...@fantasyfarm.com> wrote:
> Is there some basic kinda-categorical statement one can make about
> what "property rights". Do states [or individuals???] have
> control of the "air rights" over their land? Does, for example,
> the drinking age on board a cross country flight vary as the plane
> flies over various states?
Lawyers are taught that "ownership" or real estate is a "bundle" of
> Is there some basic kinda-categorical statement one can make about
> what "property rights". Do states [or individuals???] have
> control of the "air rights" over their land? Does, for example,
> the drinking age on board a cross country flight vary as the plane
> flies over various states?
rights. A right isn't something that is inherent, but given by law.
So people can actually have rights in property. But there are many
kinds of rights - the right to occupy, the right to exploit the
surface, the right to exploit what's under the ground, the right to
leave property to someone when you die, and more. People can have
more or fewer of these rights.
> Another thing I was thinking about: if you're one of the people on
> the Southern border that Trump is planning to eminent-domain your
> land for the border wall: but what about the states. Can the
> federal government nationalize the land directly, or does the
> state have to be involved. [e.g., the state take it first from the
> state-resident and then the feds take it from the state]
Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The Amendments originally were
thought to apply only to the Federal Government. So it seems
reasonable to think that the federal government can condemn property
without involving the states, assuming they do it within the rules.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
John Levine
Jun 22, 2019, 3:00:52 PM6/22/19
to
In article <r0tqgepc0hi1nln90...@4ax.com>,
In the original 13 states and Vermont (and I presume the other states
carved out of them) the state is the default owner of land since they
existed before being admitted to the U.S. Around here in upstate NY,
for example, all of the deeds trace back to military tracts granted by
the state to revolutionary war veterans. The only federal land is
what the feds have bought, e.g., the small nearby national forest
which was bought from bankrupt farmers in the 1930s.
In states that were originally territories, the default owner is the
federal government since the feds own the territories. That's why in
the west there are large national forests and big tracts of BLM land.
I think that in Texas the state is the default owner, since it was was
already organized when admitted as a state, and also in Hawaii.
--
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
Bernie Cosell <ber...@fantasyfarm.com> wrote:
>In the US, I'm not exactly sure how it all works. I gather that various
>kings inherently "owned" all the lands in the Americas and granted various
>companies and such permission to use the land. ...
>In the US, I'm not exactly sure how it all works. I gather that various
>kings inherently "owned" all the lands in the Americas and granted various
In the original 13 states and Vermont (and I presume the other states
carved out of them) the state is the default owner of land since they
existed before being admitted to the U.S. Around here in upstate NY,
for example, all of the deeds trace back to military tracts granted by
the state to revolutionary war veterans. The only federal land is
what the feds have bought, e.g., the small nearby national forest
which was bought from bankrupt farmers in the 1930s.
In states that were originally territories, the default owner is the
federal government since the feds own the territories. That's why in
the west there are large national forests and big tracts of BLM land.
I think that in Texas the state is the default owner, since it was was
already organized when admitted as a state, and also in Hawaii.
--
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
Stuart O. Bronstein
Jun 22, 2019, 5:08:21 PM6/22/19
to
"John Levine" <jo...@taugh.com> wrote:
> I think that in Texas the state is the default owner, since it was
> was already organized when admitted as a state, and also in
> Hawaii.
Texas, along with the other states that former belonged to Mexico, were
> I think that in Texas the state is the default owner, since it was
> was already organized when admitted as a state, and also in
> Hawaii.
ceded to the US in theTreaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Much of that land
was already owned, and that ownership was recognized in the treaty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Guadalupe_Hidalgo
Barry Gold
Jun 22, 2019, 5:08:57 PM6/22/19
to
On 6/21/2019 8:47 PM, Bernie Cosell wrote:
> I am often annoyed by people claiming some thing or another is a "violation
> of their property rights". I argue back that there's basically no such
> thing. What you can and cannot do with "your property" isn't some magic
> right, but a matter of how and what your state [and the feds] chooses to
> allow for property you own. My guess is that you can't look back to
> "common law" for principles, because back-then, didn't the King own
> everything and granted permission to land at his pleasure, yes?
Not exactly. By the time the US separated from England, there was a
> I am often annoyed by people claiming some thing or another is a "violation
> of their property rights". I argue back that there's basically no such
> thing. What you can and cannot do with "your property" isn't some magic
> right, but a matter of how and what your state [and the feds] chooses to
> allow for property you own. My guess is that you can't look back to
> "common law" for principles, because back-then, didn't the King own
> everything and granted permission to land at his pleasure, yes?
large body of law including the Magna Carta and various laws enacted by
Parliament and designated as the UK's "constitution". It was no longer
the King's power to take people's property, and property rights were
recognized, although there is no formal limit on what Parliament can do
with private property. Still, I'm guessing the UK government doesn't go
around taking people's property for a public building, highway, etc.
without paying for it.
> I assume that at some point [part of the Treaty of Paris, perhaps?]
> some/all land in US was turned over to the newly-then-independent country.
> So all the land started as "federal" land???? When/how/towhatextent did
> the various states gain "ownership" of the land? I don't know much about
> the homestead act, but AFAIK it was *federal* land that was directly passed
> to individuals, yes? At some point did that 'ownership' become subject to
> state regulation?
owned, and those owners kept their rights, now secured by the Fifth
Amendment among other things.
>
> Is there some basic kinda-categorical statement one can make about what
> "property rights". Do states [or individuals???] have control of the "air
> rights" over their land? Does, for example, the drinking age on board a
> cross country flight vary as the plane flies over various states?
which have something to do with practicality and a vague relationship to
homesteading and the way water rights are acquired: whoever uses it
first, owns it.
Basically, you own the air rights over your land to the height it's
practical to build. Unless somebody else (the Air Traffic Control
system) is already using it.
So you might own up to 1,500 ft AGL (above ground level) back when the
Empire State Building was built. Now, with the Burj Khalifa standing
2,717' feet high, I'd say 3,00 ft. AGL. But...
There's a building near LAX where I used to work. It's only 7 stories
high, and its under the glide path for LAX. When my employer was getting
ready to move in, they wanted to put the water chiller for the A/C on
the roof (the traditional place). But that would have increased the
height of the building to within 1,000 ft. of the glide path. The FAA
said no. So the water chiller stood on a concrete pad on the grass in
front of the building. (It's gone now: my former employer has moved
elsewhere.)
> Another thing I was thinking about: if you're one of the people on the
> Southern border that Trump is planning to eminent-domain your land for the
> border wall: but what about the states. Can the federal government
> nationalize the land directly, or does the state have to be involved.
> [e.g., the state take it first from the state-resident and then the feds
> take it from the state]
price they offer, you can take them to court over it and get what a
court considers "just compensation."
>
> Sorry this is so disorganized. I clearly don't understand the whole
> business of "property rights" but it seems very complicated, making me even
> more skeptical about all the claims of "property rights" I see people
> throwing around.
>
> Is there some reasonably accurate but not too couched in obscure legalese
> about how this all actually works in modern-day USA?
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
"Liberty" includes not only the right to control your body, but the
fruits of your labor. Which you can trade for other things, including
land ownership.
The Declaration of Independence is not governing law in the US, of
course, but its wording tends to guide the interpretation of the
governing law: US Constitution, treaties, Federal laws, state
constitutions, state laws, local charters and laws. And one of the
purposes of the Constitution is to protect our rights by limiting what
the government is allowed to do.
Fifth Amendment: ...nor shall private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation.
Most of the arguments center on how much compensation is "just" and what
constitutes a "taking". For example, if the government takes your home,
do they owe you only the market value of your home, or should they
compensate you for moving expenses as well?
"Downzoning" is another example. Let's say the current zoning on your
land is C2, which permits you to do certain things but not other things.
Then the government passes a law that says you cannot build a fast-food
drive-through in a certain area, which includes your land. Are you
entitled to compensation for the reduction in your property's value?
Most of the time, the courts have said, "No." There was one case in
Glendale, CA IIRC, where the city said, "you can't build here because of
flood danger." The property owner sued, took it to the Supreme Court,
and won. Saying you can't do anything to your property is equivalent to
taking the property.
But smaller "sub-takings" (to coin a word) don't get much respect.
Personally, I'd like to see that change. If "we the people" want to
preserve a certain species and use part of your land for habitat (which
means you can't build on it or farm it or do much of anything with that
part), then "we the people" should pay for that. Why should the poor
schmo who bought the land -- possibly long before the Endangered Species
Act was passed -- have to bear the expense for everybody else's benefit?
But that's just me. The above summarizes current land takings law to the
extent that I, a non-lawyer, understand it.
--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...
0 new messages