4 ms·

In some cases, the law can be used to force the sale of an easement for access to a landlocked property. So, in that sense, it can amount to an emergency for yo

In some cases, the law can be used to force the sale of an easement for access to a landlocked property. So, in that sense, it can amount to an emergency for you. But it is still a sale.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
I have read about it in some cases, but it seems to depend on the situation. I suspect (and hope) that this is not one of the cases, given that the government bought the land with full knowledge that it was land locked.
- Clamchop 2y ago
  It can be done even in that order of events. I don't really agree with you, it's not in the public interest that property owners should be able to bogart land merely by encircling it, however the situation should arise, and it invites obvious abuses. Incidentally, the property owners in the article are doing just that, first by selling landlocked property evidently with an agreement among eachother to never sell a public right of way, and then by selling tours that wouldn't be necessary if they had, a form of rent seeking.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I think the fact that the state state initiated and brought about this situation has a major influence on my opinion. The state created the problem which it is now presumably struggling to resolve.
    - pas 2y ago
      how is it a problem? eminent domain is basically for this. they should buy a thin slice to make a road.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        I dont think the need is sufficiently compelling. The Californian public got by just fine without access for 180 years. There is no urgent need for the public to access the location. Nobody will die or have major hardship without it.
        archagon 2y ago
        The landowners will not die without a small sliver of their land, either. And one option benefits a lot more people than the other.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Like I said above, I think there needs to be a extremely compelling need to use eminent domain. I dont think the government should be engaging in minor utilitarian optimization. That is to say, there should be an very high threshold to use government power even if the the cost to the individual is quite small. Where the government has trump cards which override individual rights and freedoms, they should be used rarely and out of necessity.

In some cases, the law can be used to force the sale of an easement for access to a landlocked property. So, in that sense, it can amount to an emergency for you. But it is still a sale.

s1artibartfast 2y ago

I have read about it in some cases, but it seems to depend on the situation. I suspect (and hope) that this is not one of the cases, given that the government bought the land with full knowledge that it was land locked.

Clamchop 2y ago
It can be done even in that order of events. I don't really agree with you, it's not in the public interest that property owners should be able to bogart land merely by encircling it, however the situation should arise, and it invites obvious abuses. Incidentally, the property owners in the article are doing just that, first by selling landlocked property evidently with an agreement among eachother to never sell a public right of way, and then by selling tours that wouldn't be necessary if they had, a form of rent seeking.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I think the fact that the state state initiated and brought about this situation has a major influence on my opinion. The state created the problem which it is now presumably struggling to resolve.
  - pas 2y ago
    how is it a problem? eminent domain is basically for this. they should buy a thin slice to make a road.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      I dont think the need is sufficiently compelling. The Californian public got by just fine without access for 180 years. There is no urgent need for the public to access the location. Nobody will die or have major hardship without it.
      - archagon 2y ago
        The landowners will not die without a small sliver of their land, either. And one option benefits a lot more people than the other.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Like I said above, I think there needs to be a extremely compelling need to use eminent domain. I dont think the government should be engaging in minor utilitarian optimization. That is to say, there should be an very high threshold to use government power even if the the cost to the individual is quite small. Where the government has trump cards which override individual rights and freedoms, they should be used rarely and out of necessity.