12/13/2025
at
11:17:53 AM
Strange story and it seems like in most developed countries a grant of land in this way would necessarily be accompanied by a public right of way over the corners (and indeed without knowing too much about the case it seems like this is effectively what the court imposed).Even the fact that the ranch manager got worked up about their having passed over what must have been two feet of private property at the very edge of the ranch leads me to believe that the ranch owner was effectively treating the public square as an extension of his land and recruiting the local authorities to act as his enforcers. All very Yellowstone-y.
by NoboruWataya
12/13/2025
at
12:44:48 PM
In Western Canada it's called the "road allowance". The edge of your land that you can farm if the municipality hasn't turned it into a road. But if you farm it you have still have to allow access.
by bryanlarsen
12/13/2025
at
2:43:52 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_way#Tad
by cassepipe
12/13/2025
at
3:26:00 PM
And some people just really trip on having even a small degree of power.
by JKCalhoun
12/13/2025
at
12:02:38 PM
This could have been avoided by allocating the private lots in groups of 2x3 as part of 3x4 rectangles, like so (each "##" is aone 1x1 lot): +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--
| | | | | | | | | |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--
| |##|##| |##|##| |##|##|
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--
| |##|##| |##|##| |##|##|
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--
| |##|##| |##|##| |##|##|
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--
| | | | | | | | | |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--
| |##|##| |##|##| |##|##|
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--
| |##|##| |##|##| |##|##|
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--
| |##|##| |##|##| |##|##|
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--
| | | | | | | | | |
This would allow the public to retain 50% of the land, while making sure people are able to pass private lots without trespassing, as well as allowing individual lot owners to access their land without trespassing.
by sltkr
12/13/2025
at
12:56:50 PM
But you see, when these rule were being framed bad actors PLANNED on exploiting the checkerboard to expand their effective control. (Or at least it seems so obvious of an issue that I have to imagine _someone_ was scheming along these lines).
by noitpmeder
12/13/2025
at
2:32:51 PM
The initial idea was to first sell 50% of the land and then sell the other 50%. [1] Thanks to corner crossing, the checkerboard pattern made sure that owners of the first batch wouldn't be cut off from their access by buyers of the second batch.[1] From TFA: "This checkerboard pattern allowed the government to keep all the undeveloped sections in between and wait for them to go up in value before turning around and selling them to developers".
by zczc
12/13/2025
at
5:35:37 PM
I think that's more than likely just a fig leaf proposed for and by the people that planned to try to only have to by ~50% of the land they actually wanted to enclose. So much of this land is too far away from anything for much meaningful development.
by rtkwe
12/13/2025
at
11:01:29 AM
It's always entertaining to hear such absurditites presented with a straight face. An alien studying our race would struggle to understand who would even care about this.The obvious solution is, of course, to just allow people to pass on other's land. Maybe with some provisionings so ensure it isn't abused. You can already beathe the air legally, why not walk the ground legally?
Land "ownership" isn't really ownership in the physical sense anyway. You are allowed a certain set of rights, but you can't even mine your ground without permission, or dump toxic waste, or forbid planes to pass over. You could easily just decide to let people over on foot, too. It wouldn't take anything away from land rights.
by xorcist
12/13/2025
at
12:00:37 PM
It's a thing in other countries. Scotland has the 'right to roam' which basically allows anyone responsible access to private land by most non-motorised means. It obviously doesn't extend to people's houses and gardens, and there's also exclusions for fields with crops (but not livestock) and hunting/fishing. But you can hike, bike, horse-ride, canoe, or camp on someone else's land so long as you aren't causing any mess or trouble.
by rcxdude
12/13/2025
at
12:47:32 PM
germany has that. effectively you have to provide a path or road where your neighbor can pass through your property, if that is the only way to reach the property. you can only choose where to put the road, but not to not allow someone to pass.
by em-bee
12/13/2025
at
3:07:50 PM
"Notwegerecht" is very rare in reality, AND the user has to pay.
In general in germamy it is historically much more common that these situations don't arise because when land gets sold a prooer deal for regular "Wegerecht" is made. But it does happen.
by kiney
12/13/2025
at
3:16:22 PM
also in this particular case probably neither would have mattered.
Seems like this area is _owned_ by the farm but basically unused. Most (all?) german state consider this to be "freie Landschaft" (free landscape)
[this includes unused farmland, woods etc.] which you can cross by foot whenever you want.
by kiney
12/13/2025
at
5:36:56 PM
a proper deal is usually made, because you know that you won't get around giving access anyways, since the law requires it.
by em-bee
12/13/2025
at
12:30:17 PM
Also, do you own something if it can be forcibly taken away when you don't pay an annual fee? Rent or tax, call it what you want, the outcome is the same if you don't pay.
by PetriCasserole
