This would allow the public to retain 50% of the land, while making sure people are able to pass private lots without trespassing, as well as allowing individual lot owners to access their land without trespassing.
But you see, when these rule were being framed bad actors PLANNED on exploiting the checkerboard to expand their effective control. (Or at least it seems so obvious of an issue that I have to imagine _someone_ was scheming along these lines).
The initial idea was to first sell 50% of the land and then sell the other 50%. [1] Thanks to corner crossing, the checkerboard pattern made sure that owners of the first batch wouldn't be cut off from their access by buyers of the second batch.
[1] From TFA: "This checkerboard pattern allowed the government to keep all the undeveloped sections in between and wait for them to go up in value before turning around and selling them to developers".
I think that's more than likely just a fig leaf proposed for and by the people that planned to try to only have to by ~50% of the land they actually wanted to enclose. So much of this land is too far away from anything for much meaningful development.
Strange story and it seems like in most developed countries a grant of land in this way would necessarily be accompanied by a public right of way over the corners (and indeed without knowing too much about the case it seems like this is effectively what the court imposed).
Even the fact that the ranch manager got worked up about their having passed over what must have been two feet of private property at the very edge of the ranch leads me to believe that the ranch owner was effectively treating the public square as an extension of his land and recruiting the local authorities to act as his enforcers. All very Yellowstone-y.
In Western Canada it's called the "road allowance". The edge of your land that you can farm if the municipality hasn't turned it into a road. But if you farm it you have still have to allow access.
I'm glad the court case came down on the reasonable side that you can't effectively by half the land (as you buy more and more land of course) to gain control of the entire enclosed area which is clearly what all those land owners thought they could achieve. I wonder if they're going to actually buy the enclosed areas now?
It's always entertaining to hear such absurditites presented with a straight face. An alien studying our race would struggle to understand who would even care about this.
The obvious solution is, of course, to just allow people to pass on other's land. Maybe with some provisionings so ensure it isn't abused. You can already beathe the air legally, why not walk the ground legally?
Land "ownership" isn't really ownership in the physical sense anyway. You are allowed a certain set of rights, but you can't even mine your ground without permission, or dump toxic waste, or forbid planes to pass over. You could easily just decide to let people over on foot, too. It wouldn't take anything away from land rights.
It's a thing in other countries. Scotland has the 'right to roam' which basically allows anyone responsible access to private land by most non-motorised means. It obviously doesn't extend to people's houses and gardens, and there's also exclusions for fields with crops (but not livestock) and hunting/fishing. But you can hike, bike, horse-ride, canoe, or camp on someone else's land so long as you aren't causing any mess or trouble.
germany has that. effectively you have to provide a path or road where your neighbor can pass through your property, if that is the only way to reach the property. you can only choose where to put the road, but not to not allow someone to pass.
"Notwegerecht" is very rare in reality, AND the user has to pay.
In general in germamy it is historically much more common that these situations don't arise because when land gets sold a prooer deal for regular "Wegerecht" is made. But it does happen.
also in this particular case probably neither would have mattered.
Seems like this area is _owned_ by the farm but basically unused. Most (all?) german state consider this to be "freie Landschaft" (free landscape)
[this includes unused farmland, woods etc.] which you can cross by foot whenever you want.
Also, do you own something if it can be forcibly taken away when you don't pay an annual fee? Rent or tax, call it what you want, the outcome is the same if you don't pay.
If you haven't listened to the 99% Invisible podcast before, I highly recommend it. Each episode has a little synopsis, and each time I think "wow, this one's a stinker, I'm don't care about this at all," and then that evening my poor spouse has to listen to me talk on and on about the exciting random obscure world I've just been given a peek into. And there are hundreds of episodes.
Publicise the name of the pharma executive and get everyone to mock him until he gets the hint that this (perfectly legal) dick-headery comes at a price and, perhaps, mellows.
Fred Eshelman founded Pharmaceutical Product Development Inc in 1985.
In 2010, he became the founding chair of Furiex Pharmaceuticals. Currently he is chairman of The Medicines Company, CEO of
Innocrin Pharmaceuticals, and founder of Eshelman Ventures LLC.
He has an estimated net worth of $300M and fell for Donald Trump’s stolen election grift.
The wild part here is that nobody in the 1860s "planned" this fight, but the incentives of that railroad grant scheme basically created a privatization hack that took 150 years to fully mature.
Checkerboard grants were sold as a compromise: give half to the railroad so they'll build, keep half so the public can "share in the upside" later. In practice, the private squares became de facto gatekeepers to the public ones, and once land got valuable enough (ranching, minerals, hunting rights, viewsheds), the optimal move for the private owner was to weaponize ambiguity in trespass law to extend control across the whole block.
Corner crossing is interesting because it attacks that hack at the most abstract layer: not fences, not roads, but the geometry of how you move through 3D space above a property line. If the court says "yes, you can legally teleport diagonally from public to public," a ton of latent "shadow enclosure" disappears overnight. If it says "no," it quietly ratifies a business model where you buy 50% of a checkerboard and effectively own 100%.
This is why the case drew such disproportionate firepower: it's not about four hunters and one elk mountain, it's about whether "public land" means you can actually go there, or just that it exists on a map while access gets gradually paywalled by whoever can afford the surrounding squares.
This is a great point. It would make a lot more sense simply to require a 25-foot easement along the lines of the checkerboard for unrestricted public access or a road. That would have the effect of forcing the ranchers to move their fences back ~12 feet.
In compensation, ranchers could be given the right to create structures or rights-of-way on those same easements to connect their diagonal pieces so as to make them more useable, as long as the public has a reasonable right to access their areas.
This situation honestly makes me wonder how the ranchers even use these squares, since they face the exact same access problem, just with the opposite corners.
I understood the situation here to be that the same private owner owned all of the private squares in this particular area. I would assume that most private owners won't be interested in buying squares deep in the checkerboard for access reasons.
History is written by the victors. This article is titled “The Checkerboard” but in another universe — one where the private landowners capture land by surrounding it on all four sides — it’s called…
This makes me wonder when the government's plan changed. If the "checkerboard" was meant to hold land until it rose in value and then sell it, why are so many of those parcels public today?
My understanding from the episode is that the plan was never for the public lands to grow in value. The private lands were given away or sold as incentives, and the owners could choose to capitalize off them immediately (e.g. as soon as the railroad reached nearby) or hold onto them for profit.
But this is verbatim what the article saud, you should have read it:
"This checkerboard pattern allowed the government to keep all the undeveloped sections in between and wait for them to go up in value before turning around and selling them to developers."
99pi articles are transcripts of the podcast episodes. I said what I remembered hearing when I listened to the podcast episode last week, which I apparently misremembered.
I wonder if they really have all that much value now. Barring any particularly lucrative natural resources, if one publically owned square is surrounded by private owners, who have the right to restrict travel, then that kind of heavily limits the market, doesn't it? And by that, presumably the price is limited as well.
The Sierra Nevada region has a similar history of using the "checkerboard" pattern to promote railroad building. Organizations like the Trust for Public Land and the Truckee Donner Land Trust that are systematically acquiring many of these checkerboard inholdings to preserved them from future development and open them to low-impact public recreation.
This could have been avoided by allocating the private lots in groups of 2x3 as part of 3x4 rectangles, like so (each "##" is aone 1x1 lot):
This would allow the public to retain 50% of the land, while making sure people are able to pass private lots without trespassing, as well as allowing individual lot owners to access their land without trespassing.But you see, when these rule were being framed bad actors PLANNED on exploiting the checkerboard to expand their effective control. (Or at least it seems so obvious of an issue that I have to imagine _someone_ was scheming along these lines).
The initial idea was to first sell 50% of the land and then sell the other 50%. [1] Thanks to corner crossing, the checkerboard pattern made sure that owners of the first batch wouldn't be cut off from their access by buyers of the second batch.
[1] From TFA: "This checkerboard pattern allowed the government to keep all the undeveloped sections in between and wait for them to go up in value before turning around and selling them to developers".
I think that's more than likely just a fig leaf proposed for and by the people that planned to try to only have to by ~50% of the land they actually wanted to enclose. So much of this land is too far away from anything for much meaningful development.
Strange story and it seems like in most developed countries a grant of land in this way would necessarily be accompanied by a public right of way over the corners (and indeed without knowing too much about the case it seems like this is effectively what the court imposed).
Even the fact that the ranch manager got worked up about their having passed over what must have been two feet of private property at the very edge of the ranch leads me to believe that the ranch owner was effectively treating the public square as an extension of his land and recruiting the local authorities to act as his enforcers. All very Yellowstone-y.
In Western Canada it's called the "road allowance". The edge of your land that you can farm if the municipality hasn't turned it into a road. But if you farm it you have still have to allow access.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_way#Tad
And some people just really trip on having even a small degree of power.
I'm glad the court case came down on the reasonable side that you can't effectively by half the land (as you buy more and more land of course) to gain control of the entire enclosed area which is clearly what all those land owners thought they could achieve. I wonder if they're going to actually buy the enclosed areas now?
Reminds me of the battle for beach access in California
Sounds like we aren't taxing the land hard enough
The rent is too damn high !
It's always entertaining to hear such absurditites presented with a straight face. An alien studying our race would struggle to understand who would even care about this.
The obvious solution is, of course, to just allow people to pass on other's land. Maybe with some provisionings so ensure it isn't abused. You can already beathe the air legally, why not walk the ground legally?
Land "ownership" isn't really ownership in the physical sense anyway. You are allowed a certain set of rights, but you can't even mine your ground without permission, or dump toxic waste, or forbid planes to pass over. You could easily just decide to let people over on foot, too. It wouldn't take anything away from land rights.
It's a thing in other countries. Scotland has the 'right to roam' which basically allows anyone responsible access to private land by most non-motorised means. It obviously doesn't extend to people's houses and gardens, and there's also exclusions for fields with crops (but not livestock) and hunting/fishing. But you can hike, bike, horse-ride, canoe, or camp on someone else's land so long as you aren't causing any mess or trouble.
germany has that. effectively you have to provide a path or road where your neighbor can pass through your property, if that is the only way to reach the property. you can only choose where to put the road, but not to not allow someone to pass.
"Notwegerecht" is very rare in reality, AND the user has to pay. In general in germamy it is historically much more common that these situations don't arise because when land gets sold a prooer deal for regular "Wegerecht" is made. But it does happen.
also in this particular case probably neither would have mattered. Seems like this area is _owned_ by the farm but basically unused. Most (all?) german state consider this to be "freie Landschaft" (free landscape) [this includes unused farmland, woods etc.] which you can cross by foot whenever you want.
a proper deal is usually made, because you know that you won't get around giving access anyways, since the law requires it.
Also, do you own something if it can be forcibly taken away when you don't pay an annual fee? Rent or tax, call it what you want, the outcome is the same if you don't pay.
If you haven't listened to the 99% Invisible podcast before, I highly recommend it. Each episode has a little synopsis, and each time I think "wow, this one's a stinker, I'm don't care about this at all," and then that evening my poor spouse has to listen to me talk on and on about the exciting random obscure world I've just been given a peek into. And there are hundreds of episodes.
I think a good recent starting episode may be "Towers of Silence." https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/towers-of-silence/
Publicise the name of the pharma executive and get everyone to mock him until he gets the hint that this (perfectly legal) dick-headery comes at a price and, perhaps, mellows.
Fred Eshelman founded Pharmaceutical Product Development Inc in 1985. In 2010, he became the founding chair of Furiex Pharmaceuticals. Currently he is chairman of The Medicines Company, CEO of Innocrin Pharmaceuticals, and founder of Eshelman Ventures LLC.
He has an estimated net worth of $300M and fell for Donald Trump’s stolen election grift.
https://wbt.com/576/nc-man-sues-pro-trump-group-for-return-2...
The wild part here is that nobody in the 1860s "planned" this fight, but the incentives of that railroad grant scheme basically created a privatization hack that took 150 years to fully mature.
Checkerboard grants were sold as a compromise: give half to the railroad so they'll build, keep half so the public can "share in the upside" later. In practice, the private squares became de facto gatekeepers to the public ones, and once land got valuable enough (ranching, minerals, hunting rights, viewsheds), the optimal move for the private owner was to weaponize ambiguity in trespass law to extend control across the whole block.
Corner crossing is interesting because it attacks that hack at the most abstract layer: not fences, not roads, but the geometry of how you move through 3D space above a property line. If the court says "yes, you can legally teleport diagonally from public to public," a ton of latent "shadow enclosure" disappears overnight. If it says "no," it quietly ratifies a business model where you buy 50% of a checkerboard and effectively own 100%.
This is why the case drew such disproportionate firepower: it's not about four hunters and one elk mountain, it's about whether "public land" means you can actually go there, or just that it exists on a map while access gets gradually paywalled by whoever can afford the surrounding squares.
What an unforced error (by the government).
No easements or anything.
That land has near zero public use, but you also didn’t get revenues from it. Worst of both worlds.
All for millions of public and private money to be spent trying to figure out your back asswards land ownership scheme.
This is a great point. It would make a lot more sense simply to require a 25-foot easement along the lines of the checkerboard for unrestricted public access or a road. That would have the effect of forcing the ranchers to move their fences back ~12 feet.
In compensation, ranchers could be given the right to create structures or rights-of-way on those same easements to connect their diagonal pieces so as to make them more useable, as long as the public has a reasonable right to access their areas.
This situation honestly makes me wonder how the ranchers even use these squares, since they face the exact same access problem, just with the opposite corners.
But they don't have the same access problem because the public squares don't have access restrictions.
I think the point is that private owners might run into the same issue of needing to cross private land to get to their private parcel.
I understood the situation here to be that the same private owner owned all of the private squares in this particular area. I would assume that most private owners won't be interested in buying squares deep in the checkerboard for access reasons.
There are also public roads cutting through fairly regularly in these areas.
> they face the exact same access problem, just with the opposite corners
They don’t face the same access problems.
They can cross public land.
History is written by the victors. This article is titled “The Checkerboard” but in another universe — one where the private landowners capture land by surrounding it on all four sides — it’s called…
The Goban: Taking Liberties
https://www.irish-go.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/ko-full-...
If you haven't done so yet it is worth the time to read the long history of this as outlined in the court case -
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/0101...
Restricting access to land you don't own should be treated like theft.
This makes me wonder when the government's plan changed. If the "checkerboard" was meant to hold land until it rose in value and then sell it, why are so many of those parcels public today?
My understanding from the episode is that the plan was never for the public lands to grow in value. The private lands were given away or sold as incentives, and the owners could choose to capitalize off them immediately (e.g. as soon as the railroad reached nearby) or hold onto them for profit.
But this is verbatim what the article saud, you should have read it: "This checkerboard pattern allowed the government to keep all the undeveloped sections in between and wait for them to go up in value before turning around and selling them to developers."
99pi articles are transcripts of the podcast episodes. I said what I remembered hearing when I listened to the podcast episode last week, which I apparently misremembered.
I wonder if they really have all that much value now. Barring any particularly lucrative natural resources, if one publically owned square is surrounded by private owners, who have the right to restrict travel, then that kind of heavily limits the market, doesn't it? And by that, presumably the price is limited as well.
The Sierra Nevada region has a similar history of using the "checkerboard" pattern to promote railroad building. Organizations like the Trust for Public Land and the Truckee Donner Land Trust that are systematically acquiring many of these checkerboard inholdings to preserved them from future development and open them to low-impact public recreation.