Property rights

Factual Questions
1

I have a couple of questions about property rights about land ownership.

First off, do they actually exist, or is this a misnomer? In my opinion I’m not sure that they do exist for a few reasons. First, your land can be taken away by the city for reasons of eminent domain, and I also remember in the mid 90’s stories about peoples properties having an inch of water and being designated as wetlands, thus, falling under federal restrictions and guidelines (Yes, I’m being a little facetious when I say it was an inch of water).

Also, because of the fact that if you don’t pay your property taxes then you loose your land, I wonder if you actually own your land anyway, even though you may have the title and deed and any other proof of “Ownership”.

As you can see, I’m confused about all this and want to get the facts. So, do property rights exist? Are they federal or vary by state to state? If they’re the same everywhere in America, what are they? Thanks.

2

And don’t forget Codes, Covenants and Restrictions. You can be fined if you keep your property in a way the Neighbourhood Commissar and Proletariate don’t like.

In the matter of property taxes, I think that what happens is that the taxing authority seizes your property and sells it. The taxes and penalties are paid from the proceeds, and you get the rest.

In eminent domain, the city or whoever must pay you “fair market value” of your property. The catch is that they often get to choose the appraiser.

I remember a story from several years ago where the government built a temporary road through a farmer’s land. A couple of years later they were done with it and the farmer wanted to remove the berms that they had put on his propoerty. Unfortunately water had pooled behind the berms and the artificial ponds were noticed by migrating birds. The farmer was told that he was not allowed to remove the berms since the property was now a wetland.

3

Property (real property) rights certainly do exist, but they are subject to many restrictions, controls and limitations. Some are imposed by governments, some, like easments, liens and covenants, are legally-enforceable private agreements.

Specific areas that I am familiar with include riparian rights and wetland designations. The trend over the last several decades in the U.S. had been for government bodies to define larger areas as wetlands to increase their control over what can be done with the land. This can be severly restrictive to the landowner, as it often extends to buildings and roads near, but not on, a lake or stream, albeit on private land.

But there is a backlash developing to this extreme control. In Wisconsin, the current definition of wetlands includes any area that is deep enough to float a canoe at least one day a year. (No, I’m not kidding.) As you can imagine, this allows the DNR (Dept. of Natural Resources) nearly unlimited control over land that most people wouldn’t call wetland at all, at least 364 days a year.

Not surprisingly, DNR officials have been known to use this extreme power capriciously.

The backlash has caused a bill to be introduced into the Wisconsin legislature redefining wetlands as that which has to float a canoe for six months of the year. Since this would remove the DNR’s control from most creeks and swamps, many environmentalists are very upset. The final outcome is likely to be a compromise between the two extremes according to Rep. Gary Bies.

In the case of riparian rights – the rights of a landowner adjacent to a body of water – these can be defined differently by the states. In Wisconsin, if Lake Michigan recedes naturally, as it has for the past 5 years, my lakeside property doesn’t get any bigger in the official records, but my use and control of everything down to the water’s edge is increased. Conversely, a rising lake will not change the official size of my property, but will decrease my control and use, since the land under the water is no longer under my control (but I still have to pay taxes on it!).

I believe (IANAL) that other states (California?) do not allow private ownership of land adjacent to the ocean, so a beachcomber is on public land. In Wisconsin, a beachcomber must legally “have a wet foot” if he walks on my beach or he is trespassing.

4

Joel, insofar as property taxes, that money goes to keep up the roads, sewers, schools, police and fire departments, and general upkeep of the infrastructure of the township you’re in.

For example, farmers and rancher don’t usually pay anything anyway if they’re out in the country. However, suburbanites in New Jersey have a lot of municpally provided services to pay for.

If you don’t pay them taxes, then the town or county comes and takes your land–because you have technically used the services (Ever driven on a road? Ever walked on a sidewalk?). Sure, you can avoid paying property taxes alltogether, but then you’d be living without services, most likely in a van down by the river. :smiley:

Tripler
IIRC, Arizona has no state-wide property tax.

5

OK, so we have established that they exist. What are they? I know that if the government is going to take your property away from you for reasons other than incarceration or refusal to pay taxes, then they must compensate you for the cost, but what else is there, or is that it?

6

There is eminent domain, where the government goes through legal channels to take your property for “better reasons” (which usually involve public projects like highways and such). But, instead of going through legal courts, they tend to offer decent prices and buy out the people versus throw them out.

As far as what property taxes are, again, they pay for muncipal services. What the rates are depend on the town you live in, the zoning of your land, and a variety of other factors. You’d have to call up your town hall and ask them.

Townships can also get their dime through sales taxes and in some cases, income taxes.

Tripler
The state and feds get their cuts primarily through income and sales taxes, IIRC.

7

Joel, maybe I’m not getting your question. Are you asking for a definition of real property ownership? If so, that is a right conveyed by a deed filed in the local (usually county) courthouse, defining the boundaries of a geographic area down to the inch and enumerating additional provisions that apply to that land, like easements and liens.

Yes, you can own land. Yes, you may have to pay taxes to retain that ownership. Yes, it can be taken away from you by private (thru civil courts) or government action. Yes, your rights are considerable, but not absolute and are modified by laws and private agreements. Yes, your rights vary from state to state, county to county and town to town although the overall concept is the same throughout the USA.

Does that answer your question?

And Tripler, I don’t know where you get the idea that farmers out in the country don’t pay property taxes by virtue of their isolation, unless it is diffent in your state. In Wisconsin, at least, all real property is taxed, but at different rates. Even farmers use services like[ul][]sheriff[]agricultural assistance[]welfare assistance[]courthouse services[]roads[]government administration[]planning & zoning[]soil, water and sanitary inspections[]health services[]library[]ambulance[]parks[]business loans and grants[]Register of Deeds[]District Attorney[]Public Defender[]4-H[]airports[]museums[]etc., etc.[/ul]…although not all of these services are supported entirely by property taxes.

8

Whoa! My bad. . . You’re absolutely right. Although I do recall a handful of places where they weren’t (don’t ask me where, it was years ago).

I guess the property taxes are considerably lower then. . .

Tripler
I’ve regrettably been wrong before, and I’ll regrettably be wrong again.

9

Musicat, I think that you pretty much answered my question, thanks.