5 ms·

>> It's a public policy failure for land to sit vacant like that. Then the government should buy the land. >> For a very clear example: if you're surrounded b

by abduhl 2y ago

>> It's a public policy failure for land to sit vacant like that. Then the government should buy the land. >> For a very clear example: if you're surrounded by starving people, and you own a warehouse full of food that you plan to let rot because you can't be bothered, the government absolutely does have the right to tell you what to do with that food. Let’s not use other examples and argumentation by analogy when we already have a very clear fact pattern. You own a building and the building is not currently occupied. The building is unsightly but structurally sound. Does/should the government have the right to make you surrender that building without compensation (because that’s what forfeit means) simply due to it being unoccupied? Why?

tivert 2y ago
>> It's a public policy failure for land to sit vacant like that. > Then the government should buy the land. No, I don't think so. > You own a building and the building is not currently occupied. The building is unsightly but structurally sound. Does/should the government have the right to make you surrender that building without compensation (because that’s what forfeit means) simply due to it being unoccupied? Why? Yes. The legal principle has a long, long history across many different legal systems. And I think you're thinking about it wrong: the government didn't "make you surrender that building," you chose to surrender it by leaving it unoccupied and unused to the point someone else could occupy and use it without a timely challenge.
- abduhl 2y ago
  >> The legal principle has a long, long history across many different legal systems. Cite them.
  - tivert 2y ago
    Adverse possession Usucapio
    - abduhl 2y ago
      In the US, adverse possession is a takings by a third party, not the government. And it’s not permitted when a land is unoccupied since one of the central tenets of adverse possession is open and notorious occupation. And, as you know based on your prior replies, adverse possession has a time component. The GP’s post is about merely leaving a property unoccupied. They don’t list a timeframe but we can pretty easily assume that if one exists in their mind it is less than the >5 years required for adverse possession based on the context. I am not a commonwealth lawyer, but my understanding is that they have a similar modern rule in the UK and other commonwealth countries. I am not a continental lawyer, but my understanding is that civil law is similar with respect to government takings. I will give you credit here because you may have interpreted the GP’s statement of “or forfeit the property” to mean generally lose possession of the property (including to a third party) rather than in the context of the prior sentence that references “the state allowing.” So, some backwards ancient legal principles that have been rejected or severely limited in modern times MIGHT support the contention that a third party can take someone’s land due to it being unoccupied and no modern legal principles support the contention that the government can make someone forfeit their land to the state merely for it being unoccupied. The answer to my question (Does/should the government have the right to make you surrender that building without compensation (because that’s what forfeit means) simply due to it being unoccupied? Why?) is then “Maybe to someone that is occupying the unoccupied building (however that works) but not to the government.” Got it. And it’s clear we both know that I have been talking about GOVERNMENT takings (“The government should tell property owners that they are required to keep their property occupied otherwise the government should seize their property?”).
littlestymaar 2y ago
> Does/should the government have the right to make you surrender that building without compensation (because that’s what forfeit means) simply due to it being unoccupied? Why? Because homelessness caused by artificial scarcity is violation of a basic human right, and a public order nightmare. Putting private property above other human rights is the root cause of so much problems in today's societies.
- quectophoton 2y ago
  (Disclaimer: I don't own a house, and I'm not even earning minimum wage with my freelance work.) Question. If I owned a house, and went on a long vacation outside the country (e.g. because maybe I like travelling or something), how long would I be able to stay on vacation before the government yoinked my house due to it being empty?
  - littlestymaar 2y ago
    If it's your main place of residence [1], I don't have issues with making it protected against the kind of mechanism we're talking about. Because you know the problem doesn't come from people going for long vacations, but from landlords hoarding houses and holding in order to never let the price go down. «Owning a house» can mean two very different things. It's either: - I'm living in a place and I don't depend on anyone for hosting me. - I hold some piece of paper that says that this particular place in the country belongs to me and if the people living there don't pay me I can call the police to get them evicted. The first one is basic human right and should be protected as such, the second one is just something enforced by the power of the state in favor of the upper class against the working class. [1] which, in many countries you need to declare to the government already, so that they know where to get you should they send the police to arrest you.
  - dukeyukey 2y ago
    Even if you're not in it, the house is full of your possessions. I'm not seeing how this is comparable to properties that have been actually empty for decades.

by abduhl 2y ago

tivert 2y ago

>> It's a public policy failure for land to sit vacant like that. > Then the government should buy the land. No, I don't think so. > You own a building and the building is not currently occupied. The building is unsightly but structurally sound. Does/should the government have the right to make you surrender that building without compensation (because that’s what forfeit means) simply due to it being unoccupied? Why? Yes. The legal principle has a long, long history across many different legal systems. And I think you're thinking about it wrong: the government didn't "make you surrender that building," you chose to surrender it by leaving it unoccupied and unused to the point someone else could occupy and use it without a timely challenge.

abduhl 2y ago
>> The legal principle has a long, long history across many different legal systems. Cite them.
- tivert 2y ago
  Adverse possession Usucapio
  - abduhl 2y ago
    In the US, adverse possession is a takings by a third party, not the government. And it’s not permitted when a land is unoccupied since one of the central tenets of adverse possession is open and notorious occupation. And, as you know based on your prior replies, adverse possession has a time component. The GP’s post is about merely leaving a property unoccupied. They don’t list a timeframe but we can pretty easily assume that if one exists in their mind it is less than the >5 years required for adverse possession based on the context. I am not a commonwealth lawyer, but my understanding is that they have a similar modern rule in the UK and other commonwealth countries. I am not a continental lawyer, but my understanding is that civil law is similar with respect to government takings. I will give you credit here because you may have interpreted the GP’s statement of “or forfeit the property” to mean generally lose possession of the property (including to a third party) rather than in the context of the prior sentence that references “the state allowing.” So, some backwards ancient legal principles that have been rejected or severely limited in modern times MIGHT support the contention that a third party can take someone’s land due to it being unoccupied and no modern legal principles support the contention that the government can make someone forfeit their land to the state merely for it being unoccupied. The answer to my question (Does/should the government have the right to make you surrender that building without compensation (because that’s what forfeit means) simply due to it being unoccupied? Why?) is then “Maybe to someone that is occupying the unoccupied building (however that works) but not to the government.” Got it. And it’s clear we both know that I have been talking about GOVERNMENT takings (“The government should tell property owners that they are required to keep their property occupied otherwise the government should seize their property?”).

littlestymaar 2y ago

> Does/should the government have the right to make you surrender that building without compensation (because that’s what forfeit means) simply due to it being unoccupied? Why? Because homelessness caused by artificial scarcity is violation of a basic human right, and a public order nightmare. Putting private property above other human rights is the root cause of so much problems in today's societies.

quectophoton 2y ago
(Disclaimer: I don't own a house, and I'm not even earning minimum wage with my freelance work.) Question. If I owned a house, and went on a long vacation outside the country (e.g. because maybe I like travelling or something), how long would I be able to stay on vacation before the government yoinked my house due to it being empty?
- littlestymaar 2y ago
  If it's your main place of residence [1], I don't have issues with making it protected against the kind of mechanism we're talking about. Because you know the problem doesn't come from people going for long vacations, but from landlords hoarding houses and holding in order to never let the price go down. «Owning a house» can mean two very different things. It's either: - I'm living in a place and I don't depend on anyone for hosting me. - I hold some piece of paper that says that this particular place in the country belongs to me and if the people living there don't pay me I can call the police to get them evicted. The first one is basic human right and should be protected as such, the second one is just something enforced by the power of the state in favor of the upper class against the working class. [1] which, in many countries you need to declare to the government already, so that they know where to get you should they send the police to arrest you.
- dukeyukey 2y ago
  Even if you're not in it, the house is full of your possessions. I'm not seeing how this is comparable to properties that have been actually empty for decades.