Space, Property, and Propriety in Urban England

2002 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 549-569 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vanessa Harding

The public space in medieval towns and cities was shaped and influenced by the private spaces that surrounded it. The private was, like the public, a complex domain; many interests coexisted there. The pressures of population gowth and commercial development fragmented individual holdings and created overlapping layers of claims to particular spaces. Neighbors' interests also impinged; the enjoyment of the private was far from exclusive. Elaborate codes of property rights and legal procedures evolved as a fundamental part of urban custom. When the property market declined in the later Middle Ages, however, practices changed, and new ways of defining and describing private property emerged.

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 429-448
Author(s):  
Yavuz Guloglu

Zoning plans are drawn and written texts prepared as a result of planning activities according to the characteristics of the region in order to meet the social, cultural, human and economic needs of a settlement and to show a safer and more regular development of the place. The property rights of individuals can be restricted by means of the plans prepared by the administration to create livable, orderly and modern living spaces. While the zoning plans are being prepared, the immovables allocated for public services should first be selected from public lands and if these immovables are not sufficient for the places to be allocated to the public service areas, the immovables subject to private property should be allocated to the public service and these areas should be expropriated by the administrations to be allocated on their behalf. The Zoning Law No. 3194 in Turkey is the basic regulation of the zoning law. In the Zoning Law, there is a regulation that the parcels allocated to public services in the zoning plans will be expropriated within five years. However, if the expropriation of the immovables is not completed within the time specified in the legal regulation, the owner who is deprived of his right to dispose of the immovable, is unfairly burdened with a heavy burden. The concept of "legal confiscation" emerges when the property right of the owner of the immovable is restricted for many years only by allocating privately owned immovables to public space in the zoning plans without any actual intervention by the administration. Since the administrations responsible for expropriation mostly avoid this obligation, the procedures established by the administration for planning constitute a disproportionate and unfair intervention in the property rights of the immovable owners. In this study, the definition of the concept of legal confiscation in Turkey, its elements, the remedies for ending the interference with the right to property will be explained, the procedures and principles to be considered during the judgement will be explained by giving examples from the judicial case-law and the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, and solution proposals will be presented.Keywords: Legal Confiscation; Construction Plan; Property; Contravention Tuntutan Hukum sebagai Permasalah Hak Properti di Turki Abstrak.Undang-undang Zonasi No. 3194 di Turki adalah peraturan dasar dari undang-undang zonasi. Dalam UU Zonasi, ada aturan bahwa persil yang dialokasikan untuk layanan publik dalam rencana zonasi akan diambil alih dalam waktu lima tahun. Akan tetapi, jika pengambilalihan barang-barang tidak bergerak itu tidak selesai dalam waktu yang ditentukan dalam peraturan perundang-undangan, maka pemilik yang dirampas haknya untuk membuang barang-barang tidak bergerak itu, dibebani secara tidak adil dengan beban yang berat. Konsep "sita hukum" muncul ketika hak milik pemilik barang tidak bergerak dibatasi selama bertahun-tahun hanya dengan mengalokasikan barang-barang milik pribadi ke ruang publik dalam rencana zonasi tanpa intervensi nyata dari pemerintah. Karena sebagian besar administrasi yang bertanggung jawab atas pengambilalihan menghindari kewajiban ini, prosedur yang ditetapkan oleh administrasi untuk perencanaan merupakan intervensi yang tidak proporsional dan tidak adil dalam hak milik pemilik tak bergerak. Dalam penelitian ini akan dijelaskan pengertian dari konsep sita hukum di Turki, unsur-unsurnya, upaya penyelesaian untuk mengakhiri campur tangan terhadap hak milik akan dijelaskan, prosedur dan prinsip-prinsip yang harus dipertimbangkan selama penilaian akan dijelaskan dengan memberikan contoh-contoh dari kasus hukum peradilan dan keputusan Pengadilan Hak Asasi Manusia Eropa, dan proposal solusi akan disajikan.Kata Kunci: Penyitaan Hukum; Rencana Pembangunan; Properti; Kontravensi Юридическая конфискация как проблема права собственности в Турции Абстрактный.Закон о зонировании № 3194 в Турции является основным постановлением закона о зонировании. В Законе о зонировании есть положение, согласно которому участки, выделенные для общественных услуг в планах зонирования, будут экспроприированы в течение пяти лет. Однако, если отчуждение недвижимой вещи не завершено в сроки, указанные в правовом регулировании, на собственника, лишенного права распоряжаться недвижимой вещью, несправедливо возлагается тяжелое бремя. Понятие «юридическая конфискация» возникает, когда право собственности владельца недвижимой вещи ограничивается в течение многих лет только путем отнесения частной недвижимой собственности к общественным местам в планах зонирования без какого-либо фактического вмешательства со стороны администрации. Поскольку администрации, ответственные за экспроприацию, в большинстве случаев избегают этого обязательства, процедуры, установленные администрацией для планирования, представляют собой несоразмерное и несправедливое вмешательство в имущественные права владельцев недвижимого имущества. В этом исследовании будет объяснено определение концепции правовой конфискации в Турции, ее элементы, средства правовой защиты для прекращения вмешательства в право собственности, а также будут объяснены процедуры и принципы, которые должны быть рассмотрены в ходе судебного решения, с помощью примеров из будет представлена судебная практика и решения Европейского суда по правам человека, а также предложения по их решениям.Ключевые слова: Конфискация; План Строительства; Собственность; Правонарушение


2012 ◽  
Vol 56 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Paletto ◽  
Isabella De Meo ◽  
Fabrizio Ferretti

Abstract The property rights and the type of ownership (private owners, public domain and commons) are two fundamental concepts in relationship to the local development and to the social and environmental sustainability. Common forests were established in Europe since the Middle Ages, but over the centuries the importance of commons changed in parallel with economic and social changes. In recent decades, the scientific debate focused on the forest management efficiency and sustainability of this type of ownership in comparison to the public and private property. In Italy common forests have a long tradition with substantial differences in the result of historical evolution in various regions. In Sardinia region the private forests are 377.297 ha, the public forests are 201.324 ha, while around 120.000 ha are commons. The respect of the common rights changed in the different historical periods. Today, the common lands are managed directly by municipalities or indirectly through third parties, in both cases the involvement of members of community is very low. The main objective of the paper is to analyse forest management differences in public institutions with and without common property rights. To achieve the objective of the research the forest management preferences of community members and managers were evaluated and compared. The analysis was realized through the use of the principal-agent model and it has been tested in a case study in Sardinia region (Arci-Grighine district). The analysis of the results showed that the categories of actors considered (members of community, municipalities and managers) have a marked productive profile, but municipalities manage forests perceiving a moderate multifunctionality. Moreover, the representatives of the municipalities pay more attention to the interests of the collectivity in comparison to the external managers. They also attribute high importance to environmental and social forest functions.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Franchi

Public Space is a photographic and video project examining the relationship between the public sphere and private corporations. The project explores various sites throughout Toronto and New York that are on private property but have been built with the intention of allowing the general public to have unrestricted access to these areas. These spaces are referred to as Privately Owned Public Space or “POPS”. The goal of the project is to question and document, through photographic and video practice, these spaces within the urban environment and to challenge others to consider whether these spaces are effective in achieving their intended use and if they are truly accessible to the general public. Loss of the public space is an ongoing issue that faces cities and developers often receive concessions to bylaw zoning requirements in exchange for incorporating POPS. This thesis project is a personal exploration of how these spaces are changing the urban environments of North American cities in the twenty first century.


2019 ◽  
Vol 78 (1) ◽  
pp. 124-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Rodgers

AbstractThis article argues that public property rights should be recognised as a separate category of property interest, different and distinct from private and common property interests and conferring distinctive rights and obligations on both “owners” and members of the public. It develops a taxonomy to differentiate private, public and common property rights. The article concludes that it is a mistake to think in terms of “private property”, “common property” or “public property”. The division and allocation of resource entitlements in land can result in private, common and public property rights subsisting over the same land simultaneously, in different combinations and at different times. The categorisation of property interests in land (as private, common or public) may also shift and change from time to time. The article considers the importance of distinguishing between private, common and public property interests for developing new strategies for environmental governance, and for implementing the effective protection of natural resources.


2019 ◽  
Vol 118 (4) ◽  
pp. 877-893
Author(s):  
Maria Rosaria Marella

Cities are quintessentially human and collective products. All urban space is the product of social cooperation. Therefore not just the “public” space but the metropolis as a whole must be considered as a commons. This assumption is not neutral from a legal point of view. It raises the question of whether private property of urban land is compatible with the conception of urban space as commons. The answer depends on how much we can push on the disintegration of property to expand the perspective of collective entitlements on urban resources against the commodification and new enclosures of urban space. Drawing on a legal realist approach to property, it is possible to dissolve the unitary conception of ownership into a bundle of rights. This article is a first attempt to enfranchise urban property as a legal form from its fate of being a mere boundary between the haves and the have-nots and revisit its role in the construction of social relations of production within the metropolis.


2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 397-425
Author(s):  
Tamar Megiddo ◽  
Eyal Benvenisti

AbstractThis Article examines the authority of states to settle individual private property claims in post–conflict negotiations towards settlement. We analyze this question by exploring the limits of states’ authority to take or limit private property rights for the public good. We argue that this authority rests on two cumulative justifications: the inclusion of the property owners among the public that stands to benefit from the public good, and their representation by the government that decides on the taking of the property. In post–conflict settlement, the negotiating states may redistribute both private property and the public good between and within their respective communities. Their authority to redistribute continues to rests on the same justifications of inclusion and representation. Hence, their authority extends only to the redistribution of property of owners who are members of the respective communities that negotiate the agreement, and who are represented by a negotiating government.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cameron Murray ◽  
Josh Gordon

A popular but contested view is that mass rezoning is an essential policy measure to address housing affordability. Often obscured in debates about this measure is that rezoning involves the privatization of public space. We clarify the nature of the policy by recognizing that property rights over land are, conceptually, a bundle of socially negotiated rights to parcels of airspace. This view shows that rezoning to provide rights to airspace for existing landowners is not costless. It involves transferring valuable property rights from the public to existing private landowners for free, creating a more unequal distribution of property rights ownership without necessarily generating faster housing development. We argue that giving away public rights to airspace should not be done for free and explore what policy measures retain value from residential rezoning for the public.


Google Rules ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 65-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanne Elizabeth Gray

This chapter provides an examination of Google’s US copyright case law, covering disputes over Google’s use, without permission, of copyrighted content in Google Search, Google Images, Google Books, YouTube, and its phone operating system Android. When resolving Google’s copyright disputes, US courts have considered the public benefits of Google’s services and have exhibited a willingness to limit private property rights in favor of the public interest in accessing information and content. These decisions have legitimized Google’s activities, and they have gifted Google private gains that fuel its information empire.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document