(July 10, 2013 at 4:56 pm)Rhythm Wrote: They're kind of cross odds purposes, priority and deferment. Why would we be assuring any value on behalf of anyone at any time with regards to property? We don't do that now either. I could see where we might find this to be troubling when the property is money - np, we use a different laws for money than we use for say, real estate -just like we do now.
Not really. Right now, a person can leave a piece of real estate undeveloped for years.
(July 10, 2013 at 4:56 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Deferred use (not assured value) is all that would need to be included. Which it could be, even though it's not quite "the right fit". Deferring the use of a field (while enhancing it's value) is not actually deferring use. It's in use. I think that alot of the things we conceptualize as deferment don't really fit the bill in that context. Being generous, we'd only call something "deferment" if you actually planned to do "nothing" with the land you hadn't bought - but felt you had a compelling claim just the same.
The concept of deferred use is an aspect of investment. I may reasonably expect the value of the land to go up in future if it is left unused, while it may not go up as much if it is used. And right now, the choice to use is up to me. That is an advantage that property rights model would have over priority use.
