4 ms·

Despite being a socialist in most respects, I have to agree with you. Property is either public, with the state responsible for all incidents and maintenance, o

Despite being a socialist in most respects, I have to agree with you. Property is either public, with the state responsible for all incidents and maintenance, or private with a landowner responsible and within their rights to control access. If the private landowner has to insure and maintain the area then I can't see any reason why they should be forced to maintain access. If the state sees otherwise then the state should provide the services for the general public at the expense of the general public.

thu 12y ago
It's not necessarily black or white. Here in Belgium, the sidewalk in front of your house is public but the house owner has to take some care of it. E.g. when there is snow or ice, it's the house owner responsibility to remove it (and is responsible if someone get injured by sliding on it).
- dalke 12y ago
  That's also the case in the US, not known for its strong socialist leanings. For example, from http://www.cityofboston.gov/snow/removal/snowremoval.asp http://www.cityofboston.gov/snow/removal/snowremoval.asp we can about read the laws for Boston, which require the property owner to clear the sidewalks within 3 hours of either the end of snowfall or sunrise. Or to pick a much smaller city in Wyoming, http://www.gillettewy.gov/index.aspx?page=300 http://www.gillettewy.gov/index.aspx?page=300 , "The City has an ordinance (Section 18-17) requiring owners or occupants of all real estate in the city to remove snow from the sidewalks adjoining the property within 24 hours after the snowfall ends."
dragonwriter 12y ago
> Despite being a socialist in most respects, I have to agree with you. Property is either public, with the state responsible for all incidents and maintenance, or private with a landowner responsible and within their rights to control access. It doesn't surprise me that participants in a discussion board focussed largely on the computing startups prefer things to fall into crisp binary categories, but that's not how property interests in anything have ever worked, and indeed, the whole essence of a sovereign state is that all property interests within its jurisdiction are limited sets of rights granted by and subject to the sovereign. But, in any case, the beaches themselves in California are, under the coastal laws, effectively public property, what Khosla is compelled to do is to preserve pre-exisitng access to the public to their property through his. Such requirements are actually common in property where pre-existing access to one property (public or private) is through another private property. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement (see, particularly, easement by necessity and easement by prior use)

thu 12y ago

It's not necessarily black or white. Here in Belgium, the sidewalk in front of your house is public but the house owner has to take some care of it. E.g. when there is snow or ice, it's the house owner responsibility to remove it (and is responsible if someone get injured by sliding on it).

dalke 12y ago
That's also the case in the US, not known for its strong socialist leanings. For example, from http://www.cityofboston.gov/snow/removal/snowremoval.asp http://www.cityofboston.gov/snow/removal/snowremoval.asp we can about read the laws for Boston, which require the property owner to clear the sidewalks within 3 hours of either the end of snowfall or sunrise. Or to pick a much smaller city in Wyoming, http://www.gillettewy.gov/index.aspx?page=300 http://www.gillettewy.gov/index.aspx?page=300 , "The City has an ordinance (Section 18-17) requiring owners or occupants of all real estate in the city to remove snow from the sidewalks adjoining the property within 24 hours after the snowfall ends."

dragonwriter 12y ago

> Despite being a socialist in most respects, I have to agree with you. Property is either public, with the state responsible for all incidents and maintenance, or private with a landowner responsible and within their rights to control access. It doesn't surprise me that participants in a discussion board focussed largely on the computing startups prefer things to fall into crisp binary categories, but that's not how property interests in anything have ever worked, and indeed, the whole essence of a sovereign state is that all property interests within its jurisdiction are limited sets of rights granted by and subject to the sovereign. But, in any case, the beaches themselves in California are, under the coastal laws, effectively public property, what Khosla is compelled to do is to preserve pre-exisitng access to the public to their property through his. Such requirements are actually common in property where pre-existing access to one property (public or private) is through another private property. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement (see, particularly, easement by necessity and easement by prior use)