How does home/land ownership affect your country?

[Bini]

A friend of mine is selling her home in England and it's my understanding that while she owns her home, she does not own the land it sits on - the government does. Initially, it sounds like a bad deal for residents but as I thought about it, I think it might even be a good idea. I know there are other countries that do not allow their residents to own land, especially, foreigners. I'm not sure if it has changed but I recall that in the Philippines, a foreigner cannot purchase and own land unless he or she marries a native. In the Unite States, pretty much anyone who is anyone can be a home-owner and own land. Could this cause any problems for America in the future? I started thinking about an alien invasion, like, a mass group of foreigners coming to the US and monopolising land everywhere - then staking their flag - and overrun the country! I'm kidding but I dunno.. Maybe worse case scenario? Lol.

[Just_A_Guy]

In the Unite States, pretty much anyone who is anyone can be a home-owner and own land. Could this cause any problems for America in the future? I started thinking about an alien invasion, like, a mass group of foreigners coming to the US and monopolising land everywhere - then staking their flag - and overrun the country! I'm kidding but I dunno.. Maybe worse case scenario? Lol.

The type of foreign "overrun" that those of us on the right are more concerned about stems from cultural and/or democratic processes; the ownership of land is more or less irrelevant to that discussion. The only way I see land coming into play, is the fact that land owners are supposed to pay property tax and so by selling to non-citizens you give them some measure of "power of the purse" over municipal and state governments (who collect the property taxes). But of course, we're more than happy to sell government bonds to noncitizens--and even to the governments of foreign states--which creates the same issue. And i open hostilities erupt, the feds could pursue escheatment of foreign-owned property holdings through civil forfeiture proceedings.

The only other problem I could see is if you get an ethnic group where, once a member has acquired land, (s)he will only sell it to other members of the same ethnic group. That, I think, would be impermissible under existing federal law--it's always hard to come in and break up soft racism and/or unspoken "gentleman's agreements"; but any attempt to enshrine a transfer restriction through, say, a zoning ordinance or CC&Rs, should be shot down pretty quickly.

[Guest]

In the case of England, land ownership dates back all the way to the feudal system. At that time, all the land is owned by the monarchy who appropriates them to certain members of nobility. Commoners work the land but do not own it and any income from the land goes to the crown with specific cut given to the noble who owns the land. As the system of government transformed and put the monarcy in a non-governing role, all the land that the crown used to derive income from got transferred to the British Parliament. In exchange, the crown receives a set amount of "royalties" (I don't know the proper term) to maintain the royal household. From what I understand, Lancaster and Cornwall were not transferred to Parliament, instead Lancaster is retained by the Queen and Cornwall is retained by Prince Charles.

Philippine Land Laws are a lot more complicated. It is one of those things that has caused a lot of skirmishes and deaths between government and civilians. Before the Spanish era, land was owned by tribes. And it usually is divided by island or whatever size land the tribe can effectively protect. In the Spanish era, colonizers basically just took all the land from the tribes and the Spanish crown appropriated land to nobles by haciendas (plantations). A lot of the land went to the Roman Catholic Church. The Americans came and Spain basically sold all the land that was not owned by the Catholics to the Americans. So most of the Philippines was owned by the American government. The American government sold off public land to American investors and hacienda landlords and then removed the Catholic Church as the State Religion which resulted in the Catholic Church selling most of their land to the American government. In the 1930's, the Philippines became a Commonwealth of the US, and many skirmishes occured between landowners and tenants with several people massacred, which led to the 1935 Constitution that expropriated haciendas to the tenants.

Today, a foreign citizen can own land in the Philippines if:

1.) He was one of the landlords/tenants that received the land in 1935.

2.) He inherited the land from a relative that received land in 1935.

3.) He purchased private or public land for residential purpose not to exceed 1 hectare (total ownership counting the land he already owns, i.e. inherited land and expropriated land)

4.) He purchased private or public land for commercial purpose not to exceed 3 hectares.

There are still a lot of public land that was not expropriated in 1935. For these lands, Filipinos may purchase them from the government but they can't exceed 12 hectares. Or they can lease 500 hectares for 25-year periods.

But the coastline of many islands - like Cebu - are now predominantly owned by foreigners. A lot of the coastline in urban and suburban areas are owned by Koreans and Japanese.

But, it doesn't matter if foreigners own the land, if push comes to shove, the Philippine government can kick them out if a law to do so passes Congress.

Edited January 16, 2014 by anatess

[Normandy]

Here in America, some people may own the home and the land, but they may not own mineral rights or oil rights... which can get really tricky.

[Just_A_Guy]

Here in America, some people may own the home and the land, but they may not own mineral rights or oil rights... which can get really tricky.

Huh? My understanding was to the contrary. One of the foundational cases in American contract law, Peevyhouse v. Garland, involves an unsophisticated farm couple in Oklahoma who leased out mineral rights (coal) on a part of their property to a big mining outfit.

[Guest]

Any house I've bought has been in a subdivision, with mineral rights belonging to the developer. I assume it's not an issue with acreages and farms.

[Guest]

One thing I know of American land law... you can't bury your dead relative in your backyard.

[The Folk Prophet]

One thing I know of American land law... you can't bury your dead relative in your backyard.

Yeah, on my mission (Philippines) we had at least one apartment with graves in the backyard. Not buried, but the above-ground cement tomb things. Kind of cool...and kind of creepy.

[Guest]

Yeah, on my mission (Philippines) we had at least one apartment with graves in the backyard. Not buried, but the above-ground cement tomb things. Kind of cool...and kind of creepy.

You spent your mission in the Philippines? THAT'S COOL!!! Where were you assigned?

Yeah, we normally don't bury the dead underground in the islands - you could hit water before 6 feet under...

[The Folk Prophet]

You spent your mission in the Philippines? THAT'S COOL!!! Where were you assigned?

Bacolod was my mission. Negros and Panay islands. 1990-92.

[Guest]

Bacolod was my mission. Negros and Panay islands. 1990-92.

WHOA! I was still living in the next island over! CEBU! Man... I guess you spoke Ilonggo not Bisaya.

[The Folk Prophet]

WHOA! I was still living in the next island over! CEBU! Man... I guess you spoke Ilonggo not Bisaya.

"Spoke" is a bit of a stretch. I mangled Ilonggo. My grandparents went to Cebu. We shared a mission President (the mission split between when they came home and I went out).

[Sali]

I have owned a house in England and the land it was on so I'm not sure what your friend is talking about Bini. :)

[Guest]

I have owned a house in England and the land it was on so I'm not sure what your friend is talking about Bini. :)

50% of Great Britain is privately held. Okay... in this usage, privately held means it's not Parliament's property, crown estate, remnant of the feudal aristocracy (still owned by noble families), nor common interest land like those owned by the Church of England. Of the 50%, a large number is commercial property - a large number of which are agricultural. So, private residential ownership exists but it's a relatively smaller piece of the pie.

In the US, over 60% is privately held, the rest is owned by the States or Federal government. But, most of the publicly held land is in sparsely populated Alaska. But then, a lot of privately held land is commercial property - a large number of which are agricultural.

So, I guess, they're pretty much the same.

[mnn727]

One thing I know of American land law... you can't bury your dead relative in your backyard.

Actually in parts of the country, you can.

Rest at home forever? Home burials surprisingly legal - MSN Real Estate

Edited January 17, 2014 by mnn727

[applepansy]

I haven't read the whole thread and maybe someone has brought this up.

Not all states in America allow land ownership. A friend who lives back east told me they can't own land, they rent it for 99 years or something like that.

[Guest]

I haven't read the whole thread and maybe someone has brought this up.

Not all states in America allow land ownership. A friend who lives back east told me they can't own land, they rent it for 99 years or something like that.

I am 100% certain this is incorrect. Property Rights is a big thing in America. Especially in the east. There are only a very few states where private property is smaller by percentage than public property. One of them is Utah. None of them are in the east. There are no states that do not have privately owned land. To my knowledge (gotta add that disclaimer because I could well be wrong).

[Just_A_Guy]

I haven't read the whole thread and maybe someone has brought this up.

Not all states in America allow land ownership. A friend who lives back east told me they can't own land, they rent it for 99 years or something like that.

My family is in a similar situation with a lakeside cabin built in the mountains of California in the 1950s by my grandfather--the land is owned by PG&E, and the family has it on a ninety-nine year lease. But that's not because California prohibits outright land ownership; it's just because Grandpa chose to build in a spot where someone else already owned the land and wasn't willing to sell it outright.

Then again, your friend might be thinking of a legal doctrine called the "rule against perpetuities"--a holdover from English common law, I think--which states (I'm drastically over-simplifying) that land can't titled in such a way that it will be held in trust indefinitely. Some states have modified versions of the RAP that say land can be held in trust for up to nine hundred ninety nine years. Or (s)he may have been from a city built on an Indian reservation, like Salmanca, New York, where the land is technically owned by and leased from the Seneca nation.

Edited January 17, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[NightSG]

Actually in parts of the country, you can.

Rest at home forever? Home burials surprisingly legal - MSN Real Estate

Yup. Texas just requires a survey and a little paperwork to establish a family cemetery outside city limits.

[applepansy]

I am 100% certain this is incorrect. Property Rights is a big thing in America. Especially in the east. There are only a very few states where private property is smaller by percentage than public property. One of them is Utah. None of them are in the east. There are no states that do not have privately owned land. To my knowledge (gotta add that disclaimer because I could well be wrong).

Really 100%?

Yes property rights are a big deal and they do differ from state to state.

[Guest]

Really 100%?

Yes property rights are a big deal and they do differ from state to state.

Yes, 100%. There is not a single state in the USA that does not have privately owned land. Fact.

[applepansy]

Yes, 100%. There is not a single state in the USA that does not have privately owned land. Fact.

well I guess that makes my friend delusional about her land lease. :)

additionally: I've learned to never be 100% certain about anything. There are exceptions to everything.

Edited January 20, 2014 by applepansy

[Dravin]

well I guess that makes my friend delusional about her land lease. :)

Should be easy to confirm or debunk though, what state does she live in?

additionally: I've learned to never be 100% certain about anything. There are exceptions to everything.

Including there being exceptions to everything?

Edited January 20, 2014 by Dravin

[Vort]

well I guess that makes my friend delusional about her land lease. :)

additionally: I've learned to never be 100% certain about anything. There are exceptions to everything.

Your friend may not be delusional; her land lease may well be for 99 years. But you're asking us to swallow an elephant whole when you say some US states do not allow private ownership of real estate.

For example, if she has land on an Indian reservation, that is likely why it's leased instead of belonging to her. I am sure the tribal owners are not about to relinquish their land ownership.

[Guest]

well I guess that makes my friend delusional about her land lease. :)

Her land lease does not make it fact that the State she lives in does not allow private ownership of land.

Here's proof:

Public and Private Land Percentages by US States : Facts & Information : SummitPost

additionally: I've learned to never be 100% certain about anything. There are exceptions to everything.

The fear of being 100% certain is only for protection against law suits. I have no such fear about my certainty about certain things such as - My biological mother is female and my biological father is male - 100% certain. I am also 100% certain of my legal name, my husband's legal name, and that of my children. I am 100% certain that my dog is a Bichon Frise and that my 6 snakes are ball pythons and that Thomas S. Monson is the President of the LDS Church. I am 100% certain about a lot of things. Of course, I don't claim 100% certainty unless I've actually looked it up.