Property

kiwi_bird

So, this is the first topic I have actually done research for. First off, I'm of the mind that if I buy or inherited a piece of property that everything on it (and under it) should belong to me. At the moment in school we're talking about the German legal system and while the teacher was talking I overheard her saying that property could be taken away for the greater good. Not believing her I did some research, and here are the direct quotes from the official translation of the German constitution:

Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany
Article 14
[Property, inheritance, expropriation]
(1) Property and the right of inheritance shall be guaranteed. Their content
and limits shall be defined by the laws.
(2) Property entails obligations. Its use shall also serve the public good.
(3) Expropriation shall only be permissible for the public good. It may
only be ordered by or pursuant to a law that determines the nature and extent
of compensation. Such compensation shall be determined by establishing
an equitable balance between the public interest and the interests of
those affected. In case of dispute respecting the amount of compensation,
recourse may be had to the ordinary courts.

This in practice means, if there were to be coal under my house, I would be forced to leave and a court would rule what I get in return. This law is actually used a lot. In the area around my town there are huge amounts coal under ground. So whole villages have been moved and the people living on the country side have been given 8000€ and a small flat in a pretty bad part of town. They have no chance in court because it says in the Basic Law: "Expropriation shall only be permissible for the public good."

What do you guys think? I understand in the US, from watching movies and stories, that if you find oil under your house it's yours to keep. Then again I've heard a lot about the Home Owners Association being able to tell you how your house is supposed to look. So, too which point should the government or some other institution be allowed to tell you what to o with your property?

HMTKSteve

Even in the US there is something called mineral rights. when you buy property you have to be sure you own all of the rights to it and not just some.

Believe it or not there are people buying houses but only leasing the land. Very scary idea to me!

Also, if you find yourself sitting on top of a coal mine you might want to consider marrying someone in a coal family. they might be able to pull some strings and claim the property (for you) and get you more money.

Jason

It's called eminent domain. In the U.S., it's been a hot topic for a while, and the Supreme Court ruled last year to expand the government's right to take property. The caveat is that a judge has to decide a "fair" market price for the land, and the government then can force you to sell for that price without your consent.

HMTKSteve

Yup, even if you are currently planning to sell they can call in the court if they think your asking price is unreasonable. AFAIAC if you want to buy and I do not want to sell the law of supply and demand comes into play. If you really want my property you will pay my asking price.

I seem to recall a case in Texas a few years back where a mall developer tried to use Eminent Domain and lost. They built the mall around this old ladies house and when she died the family sold the plot to the mall and they paved over it to add to the parking lot.

...

Hmmm, iirc one owns the entire slice till the center of the earth if they own a piece of land in Korea(?). Not 100% sure about the country, but I like the 'till the center of the earth!' ownership. And if some idiot finds coal in the ground of my property it's my coal, and I do not like the idea of some government shouting that I am no longer allowed to own that property and only get a minor payment for the property of which the new owner then can make money. What if I want to digg out that coal with my own bare hands? And set up a mini-coal plant in my backyard to power my house? I should be allowed to do that (taking pollution and that stuff into account). Same goes for what I want on my property. If I want to turn it into a family graveyard I should be allowed. If I want to build a 100 feet high tower on it and sell tickets to people to watch on the top, I should be allowed.

Laws restricting the owner of using his or her property as he or she wants suck imho. I mean, I can do whatever I want with a knife, right? I can keep it in my pocket, I can cut pieces of meat, I can put butter and peanut butter on my sandwiches with it, I can stab someone with it. Sure, I get jailed for assault and perhaps murder when stabbing someone with my knife, but there's no law stating that I'm now allowed to stab with my knife. So why should I be forced to sell my land for only a fraction of what I can make from it?

Apreche

In short, eminent domain is good. A sovereign government should have this power. However, it is an easily abused power. If a road needs another lane, we're going to have to take a piece of everyone's property. It's just how it is.

HMTKSteve

In short, eminent domain is good. A sovereign government should have this power. However, it is an easily abused power. If a road needs another lane, we're going to have to take a piece of everyone's property. It's just how it is.

The problem there lies in which side of the road encroaches on private property.

In the town I live in we recently purchased a large piece of land to build a new high school. The main road this land is on is a divided highway (2 lanes) that is being widened to four lanes. On the opposite side of the road is a golf course.

when the state purchased property on the edge of the road they ignored the golf course and purchased 50+ feet of frontage from the town (school property). However, they paid the going rate for property at the back of the property, not road-side rates! The state's argument was that even though they were taking 50" feet of frontage they were not really taking the frontage because the road was being widened and now the property 50 feet further in counts as frontage!

The town countered by saying it would not have purchased those extra acres of frontage if it knew it would be shafted on the price! The town expected the state to pony up the value of the frontage property taken.

If a private owner owned that strip of land they would have gotten fair market value for frontage land being taken. Because the town owned land behind the frontage strip they were told "too bad" and property they paid millions for was purchased by the state for far less money.

When Eminent Domain is used it is very easy to abuse it by taking land in an unfair manner such as what happened above.

What also bothers me is when a town puts aside money to buy property with the intention of building something on it but never does. While the property is town owned it generates no tax revenue. Even worse is when the town then sells the property at a loss to some developer (who wanted it in the first place).

On a related note, one element of zoning laws that has always intrigued me is: If you have a law saying you can not have a certain business establishment within 1 mile of a church/school does the opposite also hold true? Can I build a bunch of these businesses in town to stop construction of new churches and schools?

Laws that mention 'public good' and 'general welfare' should all be abolished. It's the equivalent of writing a law that allows you to do anything for any reason.

Apreche

Usually in most places the town owns a certain amount of land on the edge of the road. I think where my parents live there is a 10 foot easement. You are responsible for mowing and maintaining it, but for other intents and purposes it is the town's property. People are not trespassing if they walk on it. The town can build a sidewalk or widen a road onto it without asking you first. However, if a tree on that land dies, the town has to take care of it (happened to my parents). Likewise, you can also force the town to do other things on that land, such as removing hazards, if you call the right people. They can also put things like telephone poles, street lights, and mail boxes there.

Of course, if the town does choose to widen the road, their easement moves, and they need to buy that land from you. As long as they do it at a fair price, there's no problem with that.

HMTKSteve

Of course, if the town does choose to widen the road, their easement moves, and they need to buy that land from you. As long as they do it at a fair price, there's no problem with that.

True, what happened in my town was the state buying the land from the town and paying the price of land at the back of the property while saying, "yes, we took 50' of frontage but we gave you 50 NEW feet of frontage to replace it!" If a private owner (only) owned that 50' of frontage the state would have paid them more for it because it could not turn around and say the same thing.

merry_minstrel

Laws like these exist so that land owners don't have too much power, it's as simple as that. Unlike the US, Europe always was a crowded place, meaning land owners had a lot of power. The idea behind this law is: "Just because the land is yours, it doesn't make it your private little kingdom."
The state (representing the public, theoretically) has influence on what you can do on your land and what you can't do. If you own a forest, you can't just cut it down in Germany. You even have to let me walk through it whenever the hell I want.
I personally think that those laws are good things, because the state does not exist primarily to help the rich protect their property. When these laws cause problems, it usually has to do with corruption, and corruption wrecks *any* system sooner or later.

Apreche

If I own a forest, why should I have to let you walk through it? Should I be forced to let you come into my house and play my video games as well? One of the primary functions of the state is to protect everyone's property rights, rich and poor.

I'm not saying you can do absolutely whatever you want on your land. Of course people shouldn't be able to build death traps, dump toxic waste, burn leaves, etc., but if people want to walk through land I own, then they need my permission. If the state wants force me to let anybody who wants to walk through my woods, and I disagree, then they have to eminent domain the land from me.

HungryJoe

If I own a forest, why should I have to let you walk through it? . . . if people want to walk through land I own, then they need my permission. If the state wants force me to let anybody who wants to walk through my woods, and I disagree, then they have to eminent domain the land from me.

Not quite. Neither your permission nor a taking by eminent domain is required for an Easement by Necessity to be granted.

Apreche

Not quite. Neither your permission nor a taking by eminent domain is required for anEasement by Necessityto be granted.

Ok, if there is a landlocked piece of property, then that's fine too. Otherwise, someone could unfairly trap you in your property, or keep you off your property, by purchasing all the surrounding property.

merry_minstrel

If I own a forest, why should I have to let you walk through it? Should I be forced to let you come into my house and play my video games as well? One of the primary functions of the state is to protect everyone's property rights, rich and poor.

Because you shouldn't have to own a forest to get the enjoyment of walking through it. Most of the woods in Germany belong to someone, so if that law didn't exist, I couldn't go into the forest whenever the hell I wanted, which would suck. Let's say you owned a piece of wood, let's say 5 ha. You live 50 km north of it in some city. Why the hell should you be able to prevent me from walking into your forest?
One of the primary functions of the state is to distribute limited resources in a way that does not cause bloodshed, which is more than property rights.

Edit: By owning the forest, you do not have the right to cut it down an build... a mall or whatever. You need to get permission for that. When you own a forest, you have the right to the revenue that the forest generates by the wood you get from it. Same thing in a city; if you own a patch of land in a city, you are not allowed to build whatever the hell you want on it. While laws like these are quite restrictive in Germany, and involve a lot of bureaucracy, they do a lot of good things, such as allowing me to walk across fields and through woods as long as I don't damage anything, so I can enjoy nature (well, 'nature') without the state having to turn the land into a national park first. Like I pointed out before, you're not a king just because you own a piece of land, and I think it's good that way.

Edit 2: Also, the actual legal situation is a lot more complicated, and I don't know enough to point out how exactly things work. My right to walk through forest, for example, is part of the Bavarian constitution, and whether you have to let me walk through yours also depends on as what the land is declared. If you demolish your house and let a wood grow there, I probably wouldn't have the right of access to it.

Apreche

You only think that way because you are someone who does not own land and wants to walk through woods.

Think about it this way. You spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy a plot of land. You wan to build a mall on it because that will let you make your money back. The government tells you no. Shit. Well, at least I have my own private woods with nobody to bother me. What's this? People camping in my woods! They're making a mess too. I have to clean this shit up? What do I do if one of these people burns down my woods? What do I do if one of these people hurts themselves in my woods and sues me?

If the law is like you say it is in Germany, there is no reason anyone would ever want to own woods. The property would be worthless because you can't do anything with it. This is why in the US, you own property, it's yours. If you want to walk in woods, you can go to the national, state, or city parks that are owned by the government, of which there are plenty. If the US suddenly passed laws like they have in Germany, and I owned woods, I would demand they buy the land from me to turn it into a national park. Otherwise, they are effectively robbing me, which I would consider an unwarranted seizure of property.

Cremlian

hat's this? People camping in my woods!

Hunting season!

Dr. Timo

In Finland these regulations are part of what is called "Everyman's Rights" (loose translation). Which state that, apart from the immediate surroundings of residential buildings, i.e. your front lawn, everyone has the following rights:

1) To walk, ski or bike where it doesn't damage crops or plantations.
2) Reside temporarily (camping) wherever it would be permissible to go under rule #1.
3) Pick wild berries mushrooms and flowers.
4) Practice "line and sinker" style fishing
5) Boat, swim, bathe and walk on the ice of lakes and rivers (yes most rivers freeze over).

Everything else is forbidden including littering, disturbing the peace, gathering firewood and making a fire (unless done in dire circumstances), disturbing the wildlife such as the nesting of birds, operating a motorized vehicle and hunting and fishing.

Now almost everybody in Finland owns a summer cottage but only very few own any land beyond the lot on which it stands. I think it is nice to have these everyman's rights basically granting everyone the chance to experience a bit of nature without the fear of being shot or harassed. I for one don't mind when people wander around in my (ok not really mine but my family's) forest, and I use these rights myself quite often.

Note that nothing forbids you from building a giant fence around your patch of forest and letting wild dogs loose inside the perimeter. But if someone climbs over the fence and the dogs don't mind and they abide by all the rules, then you really can't do much about it (legally that is). Also, a simpler solution would be to just ask people to leave your forest if you happen to meet them wandering around, but that would be incredibly rude.

merry_minstrel

You only think that way because you are someone who does not own land and wants to walk through woods.

That is partially true, but I do also think that nature belongs to everybody. I also think that me liking to walk around woods and climb mountains and enjoying nature does not lessen my integrity in this discussion. Furthermore: ad hominem = logical fallacy.

Think about it this way. You spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy a plot of land. You wan to build a mall on it because that will let you make your money back. The government tells you no. Shit. Well, at least I have my own private woods with nobody to bother me. What's this? People camping in my woods! They're making a mess too. I have to clean this shit up? What do I do if one of these people burns down my woods? What do I do if one of these people hurts themselves in my woods and sues me?

They can't just camp there, that's illegal. It's also illegal to make a huge mess. It is furthermore illegal to burn the woods down, and owning the forest does not make you responsible for people being stupid inside it.

If the law is like you say it is in Germany, there is no reason anyone would ever want to own woods. The property would be worthless because you can't do anything with it. This is why in the US, you own property, it's yours. If you want to walk in woods, you can go to the national, state, or city parks that are owned by the government, of which there are plenty. If the US suddenly passed laws like they have in Germany, and I owned woods, I would demand they buy the land from me to turn it into a national park. Otherwise, they are effectively robbing me, which I would consider an unwarranted seizure of property.

Yup, that's true, you can't just take our laws and apply them to your country, because the situation here is different from the situation in the US. And the legislation here simply means that over here, you own a forest to get wood out of it, not in order to sit inside it and scream: "Get off my lawn (wood)!! You damn kids!!" That's not the way things work over here. Also, if we stick with the argument of property: Let's say I own a little house near the woods, which is worth a certain amount of money. Now rich Scott comes, buys it, burns it down and builds a huge car factory there. Now my house is worth about half of what it used to be, so you effectively robbed me of half my property. Thus, it is the states duty to make sure this conflict of interest is resolved in a way other than me stabbing you. Thus, there is an office that gives you the permission to build, and you bribe the official responsible for your case, if you want to build your factory really badly.

Rym

I am a strong advocate of statutory outdoor property access and use rights (with limited exceptions).  Barring that, I feel that in the very least statutory liability limitations should exist, i.e., if I choose to allow hiking or fishing on my property, I am granted substantial immunity to any claims arising from others' said use of my property.

I believe that the latter would encourage many property owners, particularly in rural areas, to be more liberal in their trespassing enforcement and overall be a boon to the public.

Apreche

Now my house is worth about half of what it used to be, so you effectively robbed me of half my property.

I didn't rob you of anything. You owned your house, and you still own your house. All that happened is your investment went sour. Investing is risky business. If you buy stock in company X, then company Y invents a product that puts company X out of business, you can't claim that company Y stole from you. It's the same if I build a factory ruining your property value. You own the same property you did before, nobody took anything from you. You just lost on your investment. That's the risk you take when you make a large investment.

I am all for having outdoor property being accessible to people to use for outdoor activities. I just think that if the government wants to have land guaranteed for such purposes, that they should buy it and make it public land. Otherwise you are left to depend on the charity of private property owners. I also agree with Rym that removing existing liabilities from those property owners would help to increase their generosity.

HMTKSteve

Now almost everybody in Finland owns a summer cottage but only very few own any land beyond the lot on which it stands. I think it is nice to have these everyman's rights basically granting everyone the chance to experience a bit of nature without the fear of being shot or harassed. I for one don't mind when people wander around in my (ok not really mine but my family's) forest, and I use these rights myself quite often.

Why would you buy any property outside of the minimum to build your cottage on? Any extra property would be burdened by the "everyman's rights" you speak of.

Where I work there is a "right of way" on the side of the building that exits a parking lot. One person owns the parking lot, my company owns the land the building sits on and a third person owns the right of way. No one takes care of the right of way because it has no value. No one will buy it and the owner has a deal with the town where they can collect parking fines for anyone on the land so he does not have to pay taxes on it. He wants to sell the strip of land to the guy who owns the parking lot but why would he buy a strip of land he already has full use of?

Now my house is worth about half of what it used to be, so you effectively robbed me of half my property.

I didn't rob you of anything. You owned your house, and you still own your house. All that happened is your investment went sour. Investing is risky business. If you buy stock in company X, then company Y invents a product that puts company X out of business, you can't claim that company Y stole from you. It's the same if I build a factory ruining your property value. You own the same property you did before, nobody took anything from you. You just lost on your investment. That's the risk you take when you make a large investment.

Then don't buy a house in an industrial zoned area of land! Same thing is going on in my town. A large area of land in our heavy industrial zone was allowed to grow back into a forest (had not been used for 80 years) and rezoned as residential land. The abutting land is still zoned heavy industrial.

A developer came in to get the abutting land rezoned commercial so he could build a mall and all the residents started bitching about how their "pristine woodland" view abutting their property would be destroyed. I guess they would rather have a factory built on that land? Your right to bitch about what your neighbor does on their property pretty much ends at the property line. Unless what they are doing runs afoul of local zoning laws you can't do anything about it.

Dr. Timo

Why would you buy any property outside of the minimum to build your cottage on? Any extra property would be burdened by the "everyman's rights" you speak of.

For a lawyer, "property" is not a "thing" at all, although "things" are the subject of property. Rather, as Jeremy Bentham asserted, property is a legally protected "expectation * * * of being able to draw such or such an advantage from the thing" in question [ . . . .]

Black's Law Dictionary (5th ed. 1979) states that "[i]n the strict legal sense, [property is] an aggregate of rights which are guaranteed and protected by the government" and that the term property "includes not only ownership and possession but also the right of use and enjoyment for lawful purposes."

By contrast, Barron's Law Dictionary (2d ed. 1984) defines property as "one's exclusive right to possess, use, and dispose of a thing" [ . . . ] "as well as the object, benefit, or prerogative which constitutes the subject matter of that right."

So to answer your question, a person in Finland may want to purchase land surrounding his summer cottage for all the same purposes as in the United States. The only difference being, that over here a small, well defined, subset of usage is not an exclusive right of yours. This may in your opinion make the property less valuable but hardly to the point of making property acquisition unattractive. Also I might ad, that you would be hard pressed to prove this devaluation beyond supplying a thought up example.

To draw a crude analogy, you are saying that nobody would buy cars (or at least fancy ones) because there are no laws against people touching them. Or more fittingly for this forum, nobody would ever release anything under the GPL.

HMTKSteve

To draw a crude analogy, you are saying that nobody would buy cars (or at least fancy ones) because there are no laws against people touching them. Or more fittingly for this forum, nobody would ever release anything under the GPL.

To attack your crude analogy I would say that no one would buy a fancy car if they were not granted exclusive rights to use it.

Dr. Timo

Your attack is flawed. Exclusive rights to use includes touching the car. By living in the United States (or indeed anywhere, except maybe South Africa) you are by law giving up a small and well defined part of that exclusivity, i.e. other people are allowed to touch your car.

merry_minstrel

Then don't buy a house in an industrial zoned area of land! Same thing is going on in my town. A large area of land in our heavy industrial zone was allowed to grow back into a forest (had not been used for 80 years) and rezoned as residential land. The abutting land is still zoned heavy industrial.

Yes, it was a dumb example, but you get the idea.

I am all for having outdoor property being accessible to people to use for outdoor activities. I just think that if the government wants to have land guaranteed for such purposes, that they should buy it and make it public land. Otherwise you are left to depend on the charity of private property owners. I also agree with Rym that removing existing liabilities from those property owners would help to increase their generosity.

Well, I think we're coming from different positions here. I can understand why you say people should be able to do whatever the hell they want with the stuff they own, and I sort of agree to that.
However, if you own nature, you don't own it the same way you own a car or a house. Why should anyone be able to own a forest and let noone in? I think the freedom of everyone to walk around, see a forest and go in if they feel like it without having to look up whether they are allowed to is worth more than the freedom of very few people to hog their forest because they don't want kids on their lawn.
Also, if you own a castle (there are people like that) that has a large garden that happens to be a forest, you don't have to let people in. There are differences in the different types of land you own. But duh, I'm not a lawyer, so I can't go into detail here. All I can say about the current situation is: I see a forest, I walk in, and I have the right to do so. I see a random castle (those exist, btw) with a forest around it and a fence around that, I don't walk in, because I'm probably not allowed to. I believe this is a good thing, both because I enjoy it, and because I think that's the way it's supposed to be.