posted by Mike Madison at 10:03 AM /
The P-G published a revealing set of letters last week regarding the Hoodridge Lane gate/fence dispute.
On the one side: The property absolutists. The theme: Once you own something, it is absolutely yours to do with it as you please.
On the other side: The neighborhood. The theme: Property ownership represents an accommodation of absolute interests and the need for social cooperation to build trust and community.
On the third side: The kids. The theme: They just want to keep a safe way to walk around the neighborhood.
Interestingly, the absolutist theme is the intuitive one that many people share, but the neighborhood theme is followed by most historians and scholars of property rights. And property law itself is much closer to the neighborhood theme than the absolutist theme, as one of the letter writers points out. If the lane has been openly used for a long, long period of time, neighborhood interests may trump individual property owner interests.
On the one side: The property absolutists. The theme: Once you own something, it is absolutely yours to do with it as you please.
On the other side: The neighborhood. The theme: Property ownership represents an accommodation of absolute interests and the need for social cooperation to build trust and community.
On the third side: The kids. The theme: They just want to keep a safe way to walk around the neighborhood.
Interestingly, the absolutist theme is the intuitive one that many people share, but the neighborhood theme is followed by most historians and scholars of property rights. And property law itself is much closer to the neighborhood theme than the absolutist theme, as one of the letter writers points out. If the lane has been openly used for a long, long period of time, neighborhood interests may trump individual property owner interests.
1 Comments:
The short answer is that this is what homeowners' coverage is for.
That's not a complete answer, obviously.
The reality is most people who live in a community like Mt. Lebanon accept certain community obligations and the risks that go with them. I shovel my sidewalk because it's the right thing to do, not because I'm afraid of getting a ticket if I don't, and not because I run a risk of getting sued if someone trips and gets injured there. But the fact that I run that risk doesn't mean that I can put up a gate that blocks access to the sidewalk.
Not all property gets treated the same. Sidewalks and backyards are different, and private lanes are different again. I'm not expected to shovel my backyard, and if I'm reasonable in being worried about liability from kids cutting through and tripping (or reasonable in being worried about theft), then I'm entitled to fence it off. The law doesn't require reasonableness here, but neighorliness does. Intent matters. If you cut off access to spite your neighbors -- and some people do -- then you're living in the wrong town.
Post a Comment
<< Home