bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to atuarre
Re: I call bullshit
said by atuarre  :This is complete and utter bullshit. If thats the case, then I, and every other joe blow out there should be compensated for cell phone signals, other than our selected carriers passing through our airspace. No, because you have no claim to the airspace above your home or land.
However, indigenous tribes on reservations do because they are considered sovereign nations.
--
Prove it... |
|
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| said by bmn :[...]you have no claim to the airspace above your home or land. I don't know how it works in any other State, but actually, in California, yes you do in fact have claim to air rights and ground, as well. Rights to the use of the open space or vertical plane above a property, for e.g.
Ownership of land includes the right to all air above the property. Until the airplane, this right was unlimited, but now the courts permit reasonable interference with one's air rights, such as is necessary for aircraft, so long as the owner's right to use and occupy the land is not lessened. Thus, low-flying aircraft might be unreasonably trespassing, and their owners would be liable for any damages. Governments and airport authorities often purchase air rights adjacent to an airport, called an avigation easement, to provide glide patterns for air traffic.
The air itself is not real property; however, air space is real property when described in three dimensions with reference to a specific parcel of land, as in a condominium unit.
Air rights may also be transferred by way of easements, such as those used in constructing elevated highways or in acquiring scenic easements or easements of light and air. It sounds to me like the Canuck Indians are looking to sell an easement.
--
The Toll
|
|
soccerguy
join:2004-06-28
Seattle, WA | Those air rights are generally for physical occupation by buildings, etc. Those air rights do not include wireless spectrum, which is owned by the people and licensed by the government (in the US anyway).
So no, you're wrong. |
|
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
1 edit | said by soccerguy :Those air rights are generally for physical occupation by buildings, etc. Those air rights do not include wireless spectrum, which is owned by the people and licensed by the government (in the US anyway). So no, you're wrong. I base my above-referenced statements on current California State Law. What's your source?
--
The Toll
|
|
soccerguy
join:2004-06-28
Seattle, WA
1 edit | The fact that federal law trumps California state law on this issue. And federal law says the people through the federal government own the spectrum in the air above your property. You do not.
Air rights laws generally refer to development rights, which means physical building and construction, not the ownership of transmission of radio, television, cellular or other type of non-physical media that may pass through or above the property you own.
This is a well-settled area of the law. Perhaps you are misreading the purpose of the California law. |
|
