4 ms·
> Private land states tend to have significantly less public land than public land states How are they off for "peppercorn rents" as defacto public lands? Her
by defrost 2y ago
> Private land states tend to have significantly less public land than public land states
How are they off for "peppercorn rents" as defacto public lands?
Here, Western Australia, an initially British colony, there are several major urban parks the were deeded to the city in exchange for a peppercorn rent subject to usage constraints.
These are in a murky area, many are currently listed as public owned, owned by the city (or specific city council), but have been "conditionally gazzetted" and might revert back to original owning families (after several intervening generations) should the land usage change (eg: building apartments on land conditionally gifted for public gardens).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppercorn_(law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppercorn_(law)
- skissane 2y agoI would not be surprised if the same kind of scenario is happening somewhere in the US, but I doubt it is common enough to make any difference to land use statistics. There’s always going to be edge cases where you can debate whether they should be counted as public or private, but so long as they are sufficiently rare, they disappear in the rounding of the statistics. Also, the term “private land state” is somewhat confusing (although officially correct), since private land states can still have extensive land holdings by state or local governments, and they can even have federal lands - it is just their federal lands were originally private land or non-federal public lands, unlike much of the federal lands in the public land states, which have been federal lands since the very beginning of US sovereignty over them