4 ms·

The concept of property being sacred is what drew a lot of people to America in the beginning. Instead of paying a Lord you could literally come to America and

by wil421 7y ago

The concept of property being sacred is what drew a lot of people to America in the beginning. Instead of paying a Lord you could literally come to America and be given free land by the Federal government. It was a huge reason we rebelled against England in the first place. In this situation is sucks for regular people but in a lot more situations it benefits everyone else.

api 7y ago
That's how it was a long long time ago in Europe, too. Then they got Lords. How do you think that happened?
pbhjpbhj 7y ago
Basically perpetuating the same abuse against others that had been done to them and their forebears. Limiting the power of individuals to completely dictate land use seems like it's better for the populous as a whole.
- wil421 7y ago
  If the county wants to allow beach access they should build it or buy land. If it becomes a serious problem they should use eminent domain. The home owners shouldn’t be forced to build access.
ak217 7y ago
I don't think so. The concept of having spare land, sure. Private ownership of land is and always has been a social construct, subject to limits imposed by both society and physics. To claim that it is "sacred" is to misunderstand the nature of society. Accordingly, modern (sub)urban land ownership has very little to do with Spanish and English colonial land grants or US settlers. It comes with huge social benefits and is encumbered by extensive permitting, taxation, and use limits. You'll notice that Vinod Khosla isn't interested in exchanging his Half Moon Bay property for, say, an equivalent amount of land in North Dakota, where he might be permitted to block public access all day long.
CharlesColeman 7y ago
> The concept of property being sacred is what drew a lot of people to America in the beginning. That's not what you describe below. > Instead of paying a Lord [sic] you could literally come to America and be given free land by the Federal government. It was a huge reason we rebelled against England in the first place. I think the most important thing here is the free land aspect. Property ownership has never been "sacred" and was always subject to things like squatter's rights and other practical exceptions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession > The principles of homesteading and squatter's rights embody the most basic concept of property and ownership, which can be summarized by the adage "possession is nine-tenths of the law," meaning the person who uses the property effectively owns it. Likewise, the adage, "use it or lose it," applies. The principles of homesteading and squatter's rights predate formal property laws; to a large degree, modern property law formalizes and expands these simple ideas.
- wil421 7y ago
  I don’t believe in squatters rights and I’m glad my state doesn’t have laws like the West Coast. There was a Reddit post recently where someone didn’t visit their property for 2-3 weeks. Someone moved in, broke everything, and then preemptively called the police to get squatters rights. Now the home owner has to go through a complicated eviction process and have his second home trashed.
  - CharlesColeman 7y ago
    > I don’t believe in squatters rights and I’m glad my state doesn’t have laws like the West Coast. There was a Reddit post recently where someone didn’t visit their property for 2-3 weeks. Someone moved in, broke everything, and then preemptively called the police to get squatters rights. Now the home owner has to go through a complicated eviction process and have his second home trashed. There's a lot wrong with your comment: 1. It looks like all states have adverse possession laws [1]. 2. 2-3 weeks wouldn't cut it anywhere to claim adverse possession. The shortest time required to be in possession is 5 years [1]. 3. Why would you believe any anecdote that you read on Reddit? So many are lies posted to gain sweet e-points that all should be met with heavy skepticism. I guess it's your right to not "believe in" squatters rights, but abandoned and underutilized property does society no good, and squatter's rights are a reasonable solution to that problem. [1] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/state-state-rules-adverse-possession.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/state-state-rules-ad...
wpietri 7y ago
You aren't quite getting it. Lords controlling the land is property being sacred. A lot of people came to America because less property was already locked down by the rich. But if we treat "my great-grandfather stole this fair and square" as sacred, we'll end up in the same boat.
yongjik 7y ago
> Instead of paying a Lord you could literally come to America and be given free land by the Federal government. It was a huge reason we rebelled against England in the first place. Yeah, because America had more lands than people, because European settlers (whether willingly or not) managed to wipe out most of its previous inhabitants. So it could literally afford to hand out free lands, and because it needed people, it lured people with that promise. I'm not sure what's that got to do with property being sacred. Surely all those European lords and merchants also considered their own properties extremely sacred.

by wil421 7y ago

api 7y ago

That's how it was a long long time ago in Europe, too. Then they got Lords. How do you think that happened?

pbhjpbhj 7y ago

Basically perpetuating the same abuse against others that had been done to them and their forebears. Limiting the power of individuals to completely dictate land use seems like it's better for the populous as a whole.

wil421 7y ago
If the county wants to allow beach access they should build it or buy land. If it becomes a serious problem they should use eminent domain. The home owners shouldn’t be forced to build access.

ak217 7y ago

I don't think so. The concept of having spare land, sure. Private ownership of land is and always has been a social construct, subject to limits imposed by both society and physics. To claim that it is "sacred" is to misunderstand the nature of society. Accordingly, modern (sub)urban land ownership has very little to do with Spanish and English colonial land grants or US settlers. It comes with huge social benefits and is encumbered by extensive permitting, taxation, and use limits. You'll notice that Vinod Khosla isn't interested in exchanging his Half Moon Bay property for, say, an equivalent amount of land in North Dakota, where he might be permitted to block public access all day long.

CharlesColeman 7y ago

> The concept of property being sacred is what drew a lot of people to America in the beginning. That's not what you describe below. > Instead of paying a Lord [sic] you could literally come to America and be given free land by the Federal government. It was a huge reason we rebelled against England in the first place. I think the most important thing here is the free land aspect. Property ownership has never been "sacred" and was always subject to things like squatter's rights and other practical exceptions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession > The principles of homesteading and squatter's rights embody the most basic concept of property and ownership, which can be summarized by the adage "possession is nine-tenths of the law," meaning the person who uses the property effectively owns it. Likewise, the adage, "use it or lose it," applies. The principles of homesteading and squatter's rights predate formal property laws; to a large degree, modern property law formalizes and expands these simple ideas.

wil421 7y ago
I don’t believe in squatters rights and I’m glad my state doesn’t have laws like the West Coast. There was a Reddit post recently where someone didn’t visit their property for 2-3 weeks. Someone moved in, broke everything, and then preemptively called the police to get squatters rights. Now the home owner has to go through a complicated eviction process and have his second home trashed.
- CharlesColeman 7y ago
  > I don’t believe in squatters rights and I’m glad my state doesn’t have laws like the West Coast. There was a Reddit post recently where someone didn’t visit their property for 2-3 weeks. Someone moved in, broke everything, and then preemptively called the police to get squatters rights. Now the home owner has to go through a complicated eviction process and have his second home trashed. There's a lot wrong with your comment: 1. It looks like all states have adverse possession laws [1]. 2. 2-3 weeks wouldn't cut it anywhere to claim adverse possession. The shortest time required to be in possession is 5 years [1]. 3. Why would you believe any anecdote that you read on Reddit? So many are lies posted to gain sweet e-points that all should be met with heavy skepticism. I guess it's your right to not "believe in" squatters rights, but abandoned and underutilized property does society no good, and squatter's rights are a reasonable solution to that problem. [1] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/state-state-rules-adverse-possession.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/state-state-rules-ad...

wpietri 7y ago

You aren't quite getting it. Lords controlling the land is property being sacred. A lot of people came to America because less property was already locked down by the rich. But if we treat "my great-grandfather stole this fair and square" as sacred, we'll end up in the same boat.

yongjik 7y ago

> Instead of paying a Lord you could literally come to America and be given free land by the Federal government. It was a huge reason we rebelled against England in the first place. Yeah, because America had more lands than people, because European settlers (whether willingly or not) managed to wipe out most of its previous inhabitants. So it could literally afford to hand out free lands, and because it needed people, it lured people with that promise. I'm not sure what's that got to do with property being sacred. Surely all those European lords and merchants also considered their own properties extremely sacred.