They don't own an exclusive property right like private land. But the granting of usage right over public land to a sub group of the public is giving that group an implied ownership of a property right. If the sidewalk was removed to widen a road, pedestrians would claim it is being stolen.
I also love how they can say that but never realize that what they’re saying is more true of free parking spaces giving drivers an implied ownership of public land
This is simply incorrect. No ownership is "implied" and no "property right" is granted by designating part of a public street for parking. So, nothing is "stolen" if that designation changes.
"But the granting of usage right over public land to a sub group of the public is giving that group an implied ownership..." no it's not. that's not true.
Comments