Saturday 16 December 2017


Land/property ownership laws impose affirmative duties on landowners to use their lands to promote the “common good.”

Burdens and benefits are many.

The major secret cooperation issue, however, is the mystery benefits of added value. Existing laws are framed to ban activities that are deemed harmful. These burdens are placed on the individual and/or groups of landowners displaying similar functions according to 2D land-use zoning covering underlying rules and regulations, conditions, covenants, and restrictions. These elements feature an assessment of accounted monetary wealth. The benefits to these land/property ownership laws are framed as receipts from the public.

Illegitimate laws, regulations and government actions most times affect a small number of landowners. These governance actions come in many other ways intended to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. In concert are they the measures calculated to reasonably conduct affairs for mutual and fair dispute settlements.

Does this apply to all landowners similarly situated yet not affected? Do the laws force landowners to act in ways governance prefers that are framed for common good? Are the dualities of these burdens to benefits of landowner’s holdings helpful or harmful?

There are two distinct concepts of land ownership/property rights. First is the ownership by the individual or corporation. The second is the land placed in its Ecological setting. Legal friction occurs between laws of political legislatures and regulatory bodies. The arguments and settlements remain highly differential.

Permanent capability for physical invasion of land ownership deprives an honest process of its measured assessed value. A serious block to conservation laws arises. The confusion between local, state and federal law fails in defining the Constitutional protection to land ownership and promotes abusive dualities between similar single and majority land ownership status.

Resolving this dilemma of ownership between private and public must adopt deep thinking for new laws. Calculating monetary value via the existing assessment process examines surface land ownership. Omitted is a consideration for above air rights, or below land surface rights. These three are linked together. Minerals and water rights should be configured with equanimity.

Add time changes to place to find a resolution for a new law adds many things into the fray of land ownership. Is property law an organic institution? What issues undercut property ownership rights with a new conceptual legal framework? (old laws versus new proposed and accepted laws)

Would a new law rewrite simply deprive a position that landowners own nothing? This idea is popular with original inhabitants such as Native American Indian, Aboriginee, Intuit, San and Amazonians. It demands a response to gracefully thank Earths abundance for supporting mankind’s ever-expanding population.

The formulaic market value test and calibrations found in the geographic distribution of “similar” land ownership conditions need to address why the just compensation clause exists that pervades all probable court dispute litigation. The base of the solution for new law creation is when and in what way all land-related decision-makings are imbalanced with mankind’s attitude toward both land ownership estate and Natures ecological “State.” Citizens are moving into future responsibilities that will demand a fundamental revision of land-ownership laws to connect with Nature’s laws.

Acquest for inventive laws that prevail between new “Spatial Ownership” with a proportional inclusion of adjacent “Green Ownership” for community duties must be framed and rooted in ethics, ecology, and aesthetics for good people – (salus populi) – and should become the supreme law of the land in the USA.

Graham Kaye-Eddie

m.u.d.       ©         7/17/17   560 words

Leave a Comment

Site Design by Digital Magic Show