Reply #92: It's a new breed, but is based on logic of adverse possession.

[AP]

The legal and economic philosophy underpinning adverse possession is that sometimes, at an early stage in the economic development of a region, huge disparities in wealth result in a very large concentration of wealth in the hands of a few people and that that concentration of wealth PREVENTS economic development and progress. Therefore – regardless of the specific rules for the jurisdiction – the general theme of adverse possession statutes is that if someone uses land for the purpose for which it is fit for a specified period of time (and it can be seasonal use only, provided that is the season that one would normally make use of that land), then the person without title using the land can compel transfer of the title from the person with title to the land.

Why does this make sense? Because why would you let a person keep title to land when that person owns so much land that they aren't even deriving economic benefit from it (which creates a social benefit)? People who want to keep a lot of land and not use it AT LEAST have to go around and kick off trespassers. If they can't even do that, then they're going to risk losing it. And that's a pretty low threshold that makes sure that the economy can produce wealth for people willing to work.

Eminent domain is something a little different. Eminent domain is the government taking land -- regardless of size or prior use – because the government needs it to provide a public service that is very important. If the government needs to build a major highway that's going to serve millions of people and one house is in the way, the government can apply eminent domain to get that house. It has almost nothing to do with addressing wealth disparities and it doesn't care if the person losing title is rich or poor. It doesn't care if the land taken is used everyday for its most productive purpose by a landowner who spends 100% of his time on that piece of land.

Now, there was that famous eminent domain case in Michigan (where the government often does what the auto companies ask it to do). The government took a whole city block that was being used by homeowners and small businesses and gave it to an auto company for a factory. That's a little like adverse possession in that it was really a private party to private party title transfer based on the idea that the auto company could make the best economic use of the land. However, there was the problem that the auto company wasn't basing their argument on open and notorious use without the objection of the title holders. Well, such a schizophrenic law was bound to collapse on its own poor logic, which it did recently when the Mich Supreme Court said it no longer was the law of the state. (And it didn't hurt that 20:20 hindsight showed the court that the compelled transfer actually took value away out of the land – the auto company abandoned the factory and left behind a economically devastated neighborhood).

Anyway, an important part of adverse possession is that the land is not being used and that it's going to a private party who wants to use it for private economic gain, and it most often operates when very rich, large landowners can't be bothered to use their property (although the other time it is often applied is with abandoned property – like a mansion that squatters take over – but although the plot size is smaller, the situation is similar in that you have a title holder with so much wealth and so little interest in a property which poorer people can make excellent use out of that they can't be bothered to take the time to keep track of an old mansion).

In VZ the situation is way more like adverse possession than eminent domain. You have large landowners who took advantage of huge disparities in wealth to accumulate huge pieces of land which, not only do they not use at all in many cases, but they also put to such ridiculously unproductive uses thank to the fact that income disparity and colonialism meant they could take the land for much less than it is really worth. The government is facilitating the transfer of land from very wealth people who can't be bothered to use huge plots of land and giving it to people who will put the land to good use (through farming, in many cases).

And that's a good thing. That's why many jurisdictions have adverse possession statutes.