5 ms·

Another article I read on this had a (IMHO) clever hack to the problem; the interlopers brought a ladder and oriented it so that they could climb from one corne

by fooqux 4y ago

Another article I read on this had a (IMHO) clever hack to the problem; the interlopers brought a ladder and oriented it so that they could climb from one corner to the other without the possibility of touching private land. But that doesn't work either as apparently land owners also own the air above their land. Sadly, no sarcasm tag here.

avianlyric 4y ago
> But that doesn't work either as apparently land owners also own the air above their land. Sadly, no sarcasm tag here. Not sure why that’s surprising. If that wasn’t true, then there would be nothing preventing someone from extending their home over someone’s else property by simply ensuring the extension never touched the ground. Land ownership kinda has to include air rights above it, last I checked, humans aren’t capable of existing in a purely 2D space. Corner-crossing is obviously an odd place where geometry and reality collide to produce some very odd results. But just because this specific edge-case make air right look silly, doesn’t mean that air right are a bad idea. In the vast majority of situations air right accurately reflect people’s common understanding of property rights.
- fooqux 4y ago
  >If that wasn’t true, then there would be nothing preventing someone from extending their home over someone’s else property by simply ensuring the extension never touched the ground. Seems like they could just say "nothing touching the ground can impede on my property." But I concede the point to you. My first thought (and why I was mentioning sarcasm) was because there's a ton of air traffic above private property all the time. But then I read into it a bit after reading your response and it looks like the legal definition is "air rights extend to the airspace above the surface that could reasonably be used in connection with the land." OK, so the 747 above my house is likely fine. But why about the tiny prop plane flying over head to take pictures of my property? Or the obvious drones? It looks like they generally say anything above 500ft - 1000ft is not owned, depending on congestion. So drones are out but that annoying guy in the plane taking pictures to try to sell them to me is still allowed.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    The navigable airspace of the US is under the jurisdiction of the FAA. That’s generally all of 500’ above ground and up, plus those amounts that are lower as required for takeoff and landing.
jrs235 4y ago
This article mentioned this. However, a helicopter is possible of staying over any airspace above the property that might be considered private property.

by fooqux 4y ago

avianlyric 4y ago

> But that doesn't work either as apparently land owners also own the air above their land. Sadly, no sarcasm tag here. Not sure why that’s surprising. If that wasn’t true, then there would be nothing preventing someone from extending their home over someone’s else property by simply ensuring the extension never touched the ground. Land ownership kinda has to include air rights above it, last I checked, humans aren’t capable of existing in a purely 2D space. Corner-crossing is obviously an odd place where geometry and reality collide to produce some very odd results. But just because this specific edge-case make air right look silly, doesn’t mean that air right are a bad idea. In the vast majority of situations air right accurately reflect people’s common understanding of property rights.

fooqux 4y ago
>If that wasn’t true, then there would be nothing preventing someone from extending their home over someone’s else property by simply ensuring the extension never touched the ground. Seems like they could just say "nothing touching the ground can impede on my property." But I concede the point to you. My first thought (and why I was mentioning sarcasm) was because there's a ton of air traffic above private property all the time. But then I read into it a bit after reading your response and it looks like the legal definition is "air rights extend to the airspace above the surface that could reasonably be used in connection with the land." OK, so the 747 above my house is likely fine. But why about the tiny prop plane flying over head to take pictures of my property? Or the obvious drones? It looks like they generally say anything above 500ft - 1000ft is not owned, depending on congestion. So drones are out but that annoying guy in the plane taking pictures to try to sell them to me is still allowed.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  The navigable airspace of the US is under the jurisdiction of the FAA. That’s generally all of 500’ above ground and up, plus those amounts that are lower as required for takeoff and landing.

jrs235 4y ago

This article mentioned this. However, a helicopter is possible of staying over any airspace above the property that might be considered private property.