From Newsgroup: alt.internet.wireless
On 2025/12/4 11:48:22, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-12-04 12:20, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2025/12/4 0:43:14, Marian wrote:
[]
What I love about Usenet is we all work together as a team, where each
individual brings a completely different perspective to each discussion.
This "minimum size" thing is certainly a different perspective! I don't
_think_ anywhere in the UK has a minimum property size rule. (I vaguely
remember - some decades ago - some people wanting to hinder development
in some area sold off a field in square-yard patches, ideally to people
abroad, thus making it difficult for any potential developer to even
_contact_ all the owners, and something might have been done to prevent
_that_, but we're talking many orders of magnitude different here!)
Selling a field in square-yard patches? Really? Wow. The cost of the paperwork would be more than the land!
Do you remember where this was? It is an idea, when the people want an > area not to be developed.
Sorry, no - as I said, it was decades ago. I think some of the sales
were to Americans who liked the idea of owning a bit of the old country.
And those buying - whether Americans for that reason, or those who
agreed with the opposition to development - were willing to pay over the
odds, i. e. more than the land was _practically_ worth. I _think_
something was done to get over the requirement to contact all owners
(e.-ag. when "compulsory purchase" was involved), but I don't remember
any details, or even where it was (other than I'm pretty sure it was in Britain, probably England).
(Gonna be hard to google, too: I just tried, but all I found were the
opposite - discussion of people buying "micro-plots" as investment
[unlikely to work as you'd need all owners to agree if development _did_ happen], plus mention of "ransom strips" [bought in order to deny access
unless bought back at excessive price].)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2