4 ms·

In Nordic (and other European) countries the access right is much broader, not restricted to beaches. It's called Freedom to Roam [1]. Exclusivity of private pr

In Nordic (and other European) countries the access right is much broader, not restricted to beaches. It's called Freedom to Roam [1]. Exclusivity of private property is not an unambiguous universal. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam#Nordic_countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam#Nordic_countri...

vidarh 7y ago
In fact, I'd claim that there are almost no jurisdictions where there are no limitations on the control of private property. Even if we limit it to "just" restrictions on public access, I don't think there are many jurisdictions that don't have carve-outs that provides protections for public access of some sort to some private land. The reason, of course, being that most countries have traditions of access that long pre-dates modern property law, and that had to be accommodated. In Norway, the freedom to roam was considered so intrinsic to Norwegian culture that is was not even mentioned in law until the 1960's, because it was considered "obvious", despite the fact that the Norwegian legal system is based on codified laws with very limited use of precedents, and certainly no "common law" element. In a completely opposite way of seeing it, Sweden embedded it in their constitution, because it was considered such an innate right. While the expansive freedom to roam of the Nordic countries, is relatively rare, ensuring public access to the shore has been considered not just an issue of leisure access, but an issue of guaranteeing economic interests and food safety for centuries in a large proportion of countries with shore lines, and so has been very widespread - countries that don't guarantee access to the "dry" part of the beach have often still guaranteed access to the tidal zone, for example, to allow for fishing, or gathering mussels etc. The idea that some people have of property rights as something exclusive just does not match reality - there's been a very acute recognition in most legal systems that property rights restricts the freedoms of the general public, and that as a consequence some trade-off must be made. The question is generally not if one needs to be made, but how extensive the right of public access should be.
BurningFrog 7y ago
As a Swede living in California, I think I have some knowledge of this. I don't think the Swedish "Allemansrätten" would allow the public to a beach in front of someone's home, as the California rule does, and as this fight is about. I don't know how close this specific billionaire housing unit is to the beach, so I can't speak to this case, but the Swedish rule is less permissive than the California one. I would also observe that these "right to roam" rules work well in sparsely populated places like Scandinavia, but you won't see much of them in more dense jurisdictions. California is pretty much the size of Sweden, but with 4x the population. https://visitsweden.com/about-the-right-of-public-access/ https://visitsweden.com/about-the-right-of-public-access/
- wolco 7y ago
  In Canada we don't have those rights. But we do have mineral rights in northern regions where anyone can stake a claim on private property for mineral rights. It's as simple as marking around the area.
- jahaja 7y ago
  What? The general rule in Sweden is that 100m from the coast line is protected.

vidarh 7y ago

In fact, I'd claim that there are almost no jurisdictions where there are no limitations on the control of private property. Even if we limit it to "just" restrictions on public access, I don't think there are many jurisdictions that don't have carve-outs that provides protections for public access of some sort to some private land. The reason, of course, being that most countries have traditions of access that long pre-dates modern property law, and that had to be accommodated. In Norway, the freedom to roam was considered so intrinsic to Norwegian culture that is was not even mentioned in law until the 1960's, because it was considered "obvious", despite the fact that the Norwegian legal system is based on codified laws with very limited use of precedents, and certainly no "common law" element. In a completely opposite way of seeing it, Sweden embedded it in their constitution, because it was considered such an innate right. While the expansive freedom to roam of the Nordic countries, is relatively rare, ensuring public access to the shore has been considered not just an issue of leisure access, but an issue of guaranteeing economic interests and food safety for centuries in a large proportion of countries with shore lines, and so has been very widespread - countries that don't guarantee access to the "dry" part of the beach have often still guaranteed access to the tidal zone, for example, to allow for fishing, or gathering mussels etc. The idea that some people have of property rights as something exclusive just does not match reality - there's been a very acute recognition in most legal systems that property rights restricts the freedoms of the general public, and that as a consequence some trade-off must be made. The question is generally not if one needs to be made, but how extensive the right of public access should be.

BurningFrog 7y ago

As a Swede living in California, I think I have some knowledge of this. I don't think the Swedish "Allemansrätten" would allow the public to a beach in front of someone's home, as the California rule does, and as this fight is about. I don't know how close this specific billionaire housing unit is to the beach, so I can't speak to this case, but the Swedish rule is less permissive than the California one. I would also observe that these "right to roam" rules work well in sparsely populated places like Scandinavia, but you won't see much of them in more dense jurisdictions. California is pretty much the size of Sweden, but with 4x the population. https://visitsweden.com/about-the-right-of-public-access/ https://visitsweden.com/about-the-right-of-public-access/

wolco 7y ago
In Canada we don't have those rights. But we do have mineral rights in northern regions where anyone can stake a claim on private property for mineral rights. It's as simple as marking around the area.
jahaja 7y ago
What? The general rule in Sweden is that 100m from the coast line is protected.