• Aasikki@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    10 months ago

    If someone owns a house, they kinda have to own at the very least some land around it. I just don’t really see any other way for that to work. Would be interesting to hear how that could work otherwise.

    • snaprails@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      There’s a thing called leasehold whereby you own the building and lease the land usually for 99 years after which it returns to the freeholder. It’s one of the reasons that the US embassy in London moved from Mayfair to Nine Elms. It was the only US embassy in the world that the US government didn’t own, the freehold belongs to the Grosvenor family (i.e. Lord Grosvenor). When the US tried to buy the freehold the Grosvenor family refused but agreed to a 999 year lease in exchange for the return of 12000 acres of Florida that was confiscated from them after the Revolutionary War - yes, they’ve been landowners for a very long time! I think the US made sure to buy the freehold of the new site at Nine Elms (they sold the remainder of the 999 year lease in Mayfair for an undisclosed sum) 😀

    • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      This isn’t something I know a whole lot about, because I don’t believe in the abolition of private property on an individual level, but it’s my understanding the crunchy types would ask:

      What makes you think they have to own the land around it? There are plenty of home owners right now who don’t have yards.

    • lepinkainen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      You can rent the land too. It’s cheaper in the short term, more expensive in the long term.