Trump vs farmer

[Jack Daw]

For the record, I support Farmer Forbes and any other little guy when faced against a big, bullying enemy like Trump. Regardless, Trump does not wear a toupee. He just has horrible taste in hair style. BTW, his wife cuts his hair. And, I've seen his hair blown by helicopter and by winds.

[Coemgen]

Personally, being a [*political term removed - PM if you want to know*], I think that if Trump owns the property, he should be able to build whatever he wants on it. If he wants to buy some property, but the owner won't sell, then that should be that.

A simple matter of property rights. Doesn't matter what we think of what's going to be built, each person ought to have a right to do what they will with their property.

[gilmore]

...A simple matter of property rights. Doesn't matter what we think of what's going to be built, each person ought to have a right to do what they will with their property.

Well, no, the don't and they oughtn't. There are all sorts of things one can't do with one's real property. One can't create a public nuisance, that is, one can't do things that destroy or damage nearby property. In fact the government in Anglo-American and Scots jurisprudence can even take real property from the owner of the title to it through eminent domain. And every government I have heard of does so, in order to build roads, railways, build dams and flood land, to preserve the land in its natural state as parks and reserves, or if they are of historical importance, and for a myriad of other reasons. In the US the owner of the title to the land has a right to be compensated for the taking.

Ownership of real property is quite different from the ownership of personalty, personal property. It's better conceptualized as a bundle of rights in the land that the owner of the title to the property has, or the tenant, as he is called in law. It's not as if owning real property involves the same rights as sovereignty, and it never has. The theory and history is that the crown owned all land in its domain, and would grant interests in it to individuals, while reserving other rights to the land to itself. For example, the government can place restrictions on alienability, that is, who you can sell the title to your land to, and some governments do that, prohibiting non-citizens and others from owning land.

This point has been much misunderstood in recent years and sometimes purposefully mischaracterized, but its always been the way that land is held, going back many centuries.

[Coemgen]

Methinks this will quickly devolve into a political debate, which is, of course, against the . I'll respond via PM.

[bjproc]

Personally, being a [*political term removed - PM if you want to know*], I think that if Trump owns the property, he should be able to build whatever he wants on it. If he wants to buy some property, but the owner won't sell, then that should be that.

A simple matter of property rights. Doesn't matter what we think of what's going to be built, each person ought to have a right to do what they will with their property.

sorry i disagree with you on this.

just because you own a piece of land you don't have the right to build what you want, as there would be some states of things getting built, the councils usualy do a good enough job keeping the character of the building in the same mannor as the surrounding areas.

[Mike1]