Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Shalom Israel
US law is contradictory on this point: it gives a homeowner property rights extending downward to the core of the earth, but does not give property rights extending upward into the heavens.

Yes it does. The owner of a property also has subsurface (mineral) rights and air rights unless they have been sold off or "severed".

An exception on air rights has been made for high flying aircraft.

336 posted on 12/18/2005 2:32:58 PM PST by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies ]


To: JeffAtlanta
Yes it does. The owner of a property also has subsurface (mineral) rights and air rights unless they have been sold off or "severed".

Please learn to read. I said "upward into the heavens". The heavens, while not precisely defined as to altitude, are higher than the altitude of high-flying aircraft. I have no property rights governing air traffic lanes over my home.

What you call "air rights" are what I already described as the right not to have my house buzzed by commercial planes. That is, your only rights above the earth's surface are those necessary to the enjoyment of your possession on the earth's surface. That's been the US law since U.S. v. Causby in 1946. Your rights prevent airplanes from scaring your chickens, making excessive noise, dropping bolts on your head, etc., and that's it.

Hopefully it's clear, though, that this is in fact the correct moral interpretation of property rights. What's incongruous is that you still own the rights to the land under your house, down to the core--except that your grandaddy probably sold those rights to an oil company.

340 posted on 12/18/2005 2:41:07 PM PST by Shalom Israel (Well, I got better...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson