emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
Such a nice little discussion you guys are having.
Here's a real life scenario:
I don't like any of the houses in my town. I plan on buying a double or triple lot and having a house custom built.
There's a sweet double lot in a great neighborhood, each section going for a song - I think I'll go there - BUT - the household to the north has an above-ground swimming pool on one of the lots. It's entirely possible they may claim squatters' rights.
Now I know this and will look into it before buying, but not everyone thinks of such things.
So, if someone buys both lots and wants to start building but the squatters sue, then what?
If the squatters want to develop it, they would need to get support to buy the land and do so.
Grandma
This reminds me of discussions/debates I had with Occupy volunteers.
Many of them thought being in the public city park was free.
But I explained it is costing taxpayers money to send police to check on the
larger groups of people who don't know each other that is creating a security risk
because of longterm occupancy.
I told them if they work with a church or nonprofit that already owns a private lot,
they can develop that and do what they want.
So it was ironic to tell them that what was "public' was basically owned
by the city that is a private municipality like a corporation people pay into for services.
And what is "private" is where you are free to invite the public
and do what you want on your own land, as long as you don't create abuses violations or nuisances
that infringe on neighbors who will complain.
it was the opposite of what they thought.