24 ms·

By this logic of five squares, wouldn't that reduce the value by 20%

lolinder 3y ago
This ranch apparently consists of quite a few squares in a complicated pattern, but even if it were just the four it wouldn't end up being exactly 20% because you would have to factor in the partial ownership of every adjacent public square, not just the one you surround completely.
- londons_explore 3y ago
  Looking at the map in the article, it looks like it is pretty much a checkerboard. Ie. Half is owned, half is not. So you'd expect a 50% reduction (minus a couple of percent for edge squares which are not yet enclosed)
  - lolinder 3y ago
    Which article has a map of this ranch? I've been looking but haven't found one. EDIT: I finally found maps in the opinion: https://www.wyd.uscourts.gov/sites/wyd/files/opinions/22-cv-67_SWS_Order.pdf https://www.wyd.uscourts.gov/sites/wyd/files/opinions/22-cv-...
    - londons_explore 3y ago
      Inset on the left, about a third of the way down It's a blurry map, but seems to show this ranch (in yellow)
      - lolinder 3y ago
        Oh, yeah, I saw that one, but I wouldn't try to draw any conclusions from it. It's a link to another article[0] that provides the map with a proper caption: > The area around Elk Mountain is surrounded by a checkerboard pattern of public (yellow) and private (white), as well as state (blue) lands. So the yellow is actually the public land, and it's unclear how much of the white is actually the ranch in question and how much is just other private land. [0] https://www.hcn.org/issues/54.3/north-public-lands-why-four-hunters-in-wyoming-were-charged-with-trespassing-on-land-they-never-touched https://www.hcn.org/issues/54.3/north-public-lands-why-four-...
        dkarp 3y ago
        wow I didn't think they meant checkerboard pattern literally. I'd be interested to know why the land was partitioned that way across such a wide area
        themadturk 3y ago
        I remember looking at old Metsker maps of Washington counties when I was a kid and wondering about all those checkerboards of green and white land. My dad told me the green was public land, and couldn't really explain why it was divided that way. So it is, literally, divided up like a checkerboard. Wikipedia has an enlightening article on it [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkerboarding_(land) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkerboarding_(land)
        marssaxman 3y ago
        You can see this pattern all across the west, a result of land grants meant to subsidize railroad development. The federal government platted all the land into sections, then gave every other section along each new rail corridor to the developer. The idea was to encourage the creation of higher-quality infrastructure, by motivating the railroad to increase the value of their land holdings, instead of simply laying track as cheaply as possible like they might do if they were paid by the mile.
    - cptskippy 3y ago
      Here: https://www.hcn.org/issues/54.3/north-public-lands-why-four-hunters-in-wyoming-were-charged-with-trespassing-on-land-they-never-touched/landstatus_statewide_500k_2020_copy-2-jpg/image https://www.hcn.org/issues/54.3/north-public-lands-why-four-... or here: https://i.imgur.com/W3FhYz0.jpg https://i.imgur.com/W3FhYz0.jpg
      - fshbbdssbbgdd 3y ago
        Wow, that’s wild! When I heard about this case, I assumed the rancher owning diagonally-adjacent lots was a rare edge case. From the map, it looks like this strange situation was intentionally created at large scale. Anyone know why?
        drewmol 3y ago
        Mostly from railroad land grants in the late 1800’s. Land along routes was checkerboard divided, odd lots stayed feds, even went to railroad companies.
        kodah 3y ago
        I was originally remembering a time period when the railroad virtually had public domain authority to seize private lands, but the history of the land grants in Nebraska is actually much worse: https://nebraskastudies.org/en/1850-1874/railroads-settlement/land-grants-decline-railroads/ https://nebraskastudies.org/en/1850-1874/railroads-settlemen...
        refurb 3y ago
        Canada did the same. The company building the railroad was paid not only in cash, but also land (which was suddenly very valuable next to a transcontinental railway). But to avoid giving them all the prime spots, the checkerboard system was put in and they were given 50%, so the other 50% could be purchased by anyone.
        lazide 3y ago
        It’s a known way of gaming the system (mostly), and seems like the state and county is generally a fan too, since the owners are pretty rich (and likely curry favors locally), and the public land is federal, so not ‘theirs’.
    - pcthrowaway 3y ago
      So if each private section erects a square-shaped pillar which has a side of ~3 feet at each corner, would that be both legal, and sufficient to prevent people from crossing? Alternately, a tall fence?
      - nunuvit 3y ago
        No. As the article explains, it's illegal to physically block access to the land, and it's legal to climb over man-made obstacles like fences.
      - az226 3y ago
        No, the judge said, you can cross the corner as long as you don’t step on the private land. The land owner may not create a physical obstacle at that corner. And if there is one, you are allowed to scale it to get to the other side of the corner. It would be pretty hilarious if the land owner here gets charged in connection with blocking access to public land with the chains.
        noitpmeder 3y ago
        Similarly, I wonder if there is any room for suits over valuation of land predicated on the exclusive use of inaccessible public land. Someone at some point has definitely advertised this as a plus of owning the adjacent land.
- SideQuark 3y ago
  It's reasonable the first infringing corner reduces the value more than the last, just like the first N miles reduce car value more than the last N
seadan83 3y ago
Not all land is of equal value. Having exclusive access to your own public area that is not going to be developed, could be that ammenity is worth a lot; further it makes the area effectively more contiguous. All is to say the sum can be worth more than the parts.

This ranch apparently consists of quite a few squares in a complicated pattern, but even if it were just the four it wouldn't end up being exactly 20% because you would have to factor in the partial ownership of every adjacent public square, not just the one you surround completely.

londons_explore 3y ago
Looking at the map in the article, it looks like it is pretty much a checkerboard. Ie. Half is owned, half is not. So you'd expect a 50% reduction (minus a couple of percent for edge squares which are not yet enclosed)
- lolinder 3y ago
  Which article has a map of this ranch? I've been looking but haven't found one. EDIT: I finally found maps in the opinion: https://www.wyd.uscourts.gov/sites/wyd/files/opinions/22-cv-67_SWS_Order.pdf https://www.wyd.uscourts.gov/sites/wyd/files/opinions/22-cv-...
  - londons_explore 3y ago
    Inset on the left, about a third of the way down It's a blurry map, but seems to show this ranch (in yellow)
    - lolinder 3y ago
      Oh, yeah, I saw that one, but I wouldn't try to draw any conclusions from it. It's a link to another article[0] that provides the map with a proper caption: > The area around Elk Mountain is surrounded by a checkerboard pattern of public (yellow) and private (white), as well as state (blue) lands. So the yellow is actually the public land, and it's unclear how much of the white is actually the ranch in question and how much is just other private land. [0] https://www.hcn.org/issues/54.3/north-public-lands-why-four-hunters-in-wyoming-were-charged-with-trespassing-on-land-they-never-touched https://www.hcn.org/issues/54.3/north-public-lands-why-four-...
      - dkarp 3y ago
        wow I didn't think they meant checkerboard pattern literally. I'd be interested to know why the land was partitioned that way across such a wide area
        themadturk 3y ago
        I remember looking at old Metsker maps of Washington counties when I was a kid and wondering about all those checkerboards of green and white land. My dad told me the green was public land, and couldn't really explain why it was divided that way. So it is, literally, divided up like a checkerboard. Wikipedia has an enlightening article on it [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkerboarding_(land) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkerboarding_(land)
        marssaxman 3y ago
        You can see this pattern all across the west, a result of land grants meant to subsidize railroad development. The federal government platted all the land into sections, then gave every other section along each new rail corridor to the developer. The idea was to encourage the creation of higher-quality infrastructure, by motivating the railroad to increase the value of their land holdings, instead of simply laying track as cheaply as possible like they might do if they were paid by the mile.
  - cptskippy 3y ago
    Here: https://www.hcn.org/issues/54.3/north-public-lands-why-four-hunters-in-wyoming-were-charged-with-trespassing-on-land-they-never-touched/landstatus_statewide_500k_2020_copy-2-jpg/image https://www.hcn.org/issues/54.3/north-public-lands-why-four-... or here: https://i.imgur.com/W3FhYz0.jpg https://i.imgur.com/W3FhYz0.jpg
    - fshbbdssbbgdd 3y ago
      Wow, that’s wild! When I heard about this case, I assumed the rancher owning diagonally-adjacent lots was a rare edge case. From the map, it looks like this strange situation was intentionally created at large scale. Anyone know why?
      - drewmol 3y ago
        Mostly from railroad land grants in the late 1800’s. Land along routes was checkerboard divided, odd lots stayed feds, even went to railroad companies.
        kodah 3y ago
        I was originally remembering a time period when the railroad virtually had public domain authority to seize private lands, but the history of the land grants in Nebraska is actually much worse: https://nebraskastudies.org/en/1850-1874/railroads-settlement/land-grants-decline-railroads/ https://nebraskastudies.org/en/1850-1874/railroads-settlemen...
        refurb 3y ago
        Canada did the same. The company building the railroad was paid not only in cash, but also land (which was suddenly very valuable next to a transcontinental railway). But to avoid giving them all the prime spots, the checkerboard system was put in and they were given 50%, so the other 50% could be purchased by anyone.
      - lazide 3y ago
        It’s a known way of gaming the system (mostly), and seems like the state and county is generally a fan too, since the owners are pretty rich (and likely curry favors locally), and the public land is federal, so not ‘theirs’.
  - pcthrowaway 3y ago
    So if each private section erects a square-shaped pillar which has a side of ~3 feet at each corner, would that be both legal, and sufficient to prevent people from crossing? Alternately, a tall fence?
    - nunuvit 3y ago
      No. As the article explains, it's illegal to physically block access to the land, and it's legal to climb over man-made obstacles like fences.
    - az226 3y ago
      No, the judge said, you can cross the corner as long as you don’t step on the private land. The land owner may not create a physical obstacle at that corner. And if there is one, you are allowed to scale it to get to the other side of the corner. It would be pretty hilarious if the land owner here gets charged in connection with blocking access to public land with the chains.
      - noitpmeder 3y ago
        Similarly, I wonder if there is any room for suits over valuation of land predicated on the exclusive use of inaccessible public land. Someone at some point has definitely advertised this as a plus of owning the adjacent land.
SideQuark 3y ago
It's reasonable the first infringing corner reduces the value more than the last, just like the first N miles reduce car value more than the last N

seadan83 3y ago

Not all land is of equal value. Having exclusive access to your own public area that is not going to be developed, could be that ammenity is worth a lot; further it makes the area effectively more contiguous. All is to say the sum can be worth more than the parts.