Re:N.Y. landlord ordered to pay $6.7M for destroying graffiti
by dragonwriter on Wednesday February 14, 2018 @07:22PM
(#16380889)
> Letting people use your property gives them the idea that they own it.
The idea may not be without legal support, see, generally, the legal concepts of implied easements, prescriptive easements, and adverse possession.
Re:N.Y. landlord ordered to pay $6.7M for destroying graffiti
by JoeAltmaier on Wednesday February 14, 2018 @07:26PM
(#16380903)
Yet more reasons to never, ever let people use your property for anything but explicitly temporary purposes?
Re:N.Y. landlord ordered to pay $6.7M for destroying graffiti
by dragonwriter on Wednesday February 14, 2018 @07:30PM
(#16380925)
I would say, not to let people use your property for aextended period in a way you are uncomfortable with becoming an entitlement, except with an explicit and explicitly revocable grant of permission delineating what is allowed.
Re:N.Y. landlord ordered to pay $6.7M for destroying graffiti
by JoeAltmaier on Thursday February 15, 2018 @09:36AM
(#16384260)
Like, a normal lease agreement.
Basically, a property owner in South LA lets people grow gardens on his otherwise unused property. After a while the owner decides to do something else with the property. The gardeners react by trying to get city to exercise eminent domain on the land. The owner ends up kicking everyone out of the gardens and bulldozing everything.
Letting people use your property gives them the idea that they own it. With the graffiti buildings, they apparently do.