Property Rights

as a develper i would analyse ownership from
different point of view
First
Who will pay for the settlement, including services,
land, life support systems, business, buildings?
1-A development company owned by shareholders not
directly involved?
2-a company owned by the settlers?
3-the settlement is paid by a government?
After ownership is defined we can talk about private
ownership, if aNY.
iN CASE 1 the usually for profit company may have its
employees there performing some activity, they would
probably have the right of use a residence for the
time of their stay in the settlement
in case of mixed personnel, emoployees and independent
professionals, such as farmers, doctors or other
service suppliers they may pay a fee for the
utilization of the residence or other facilities
(offices, land , farms etc)
independent companies ( transportation, spaceport,
waste treatment, life support activities and others
may have similar arrangements. I don't think that , in
the early stages a development company would build it
just for the property profit but for utilizing it for
other purposes in which it i directly involved
In case 2, the best solution would be a shareholder
agreement between all members of the settlement where
each activity and facility would have a share quota x
percent for acre of land, y% for sq mt of building and
so on, including business rights similar to a coop but
with much greater scope
In case 3, the settlers would have the right of use of
facilities, land, building etc in accordance with
their functions Maybe case 2 is the more probable
solution if we want to have real full time settlements
where the settlers are directly involved.
Let's not forget that in that case they also have to
repay the financial loan for the construction of the
settlement so they would feel more deeply involved in
the operation and in the success of the settlement
itself A condominium don't make much sense since it
would be either extremely costly and it would need the
participation of some form of development company that
may have the finacial and construction burden.
The settler himself would have a too high cost of
acquisition and will also have the possibility of
reselling it if he changes his mind.
In all scenarios anyway a basic condition common to
all is the development of a local economy that will
allow profitability and growth.
The setlement must keep growing to stay alive, as on
earth history happened with cities and territories.
It cannot be built as a single unit but in small and
flexible modules to allow any type of expansion.

--- Fred vaxalon@... ha scritto:

There's a big difference between renting a room on a
cruise ship for a
week, and owning a condominium.

Personally, I don't think either model applies
particularly well.

Given the scarcity of basic resources like light,
food, and water, I
would venture to say that a space station is highly
unlikely to have
any tolerance for anyone who can't contribute enough
to cover his own
life support costs, and those of any family he brings
with him.

> I'm guessing that the current restrictions on
Condominiums and rooms on a
> Cruse ship would be the correct precedent. Habitats
would have to be really
> big to get around join ownership and concern for
perceived value.
>
> Cheers, Thor
>
> Let's try to take this conversation back ontopic.
>
> If you were setting up a space station for permanent
habitation, what rules
> would you think would be best, with regard to
property ownership?
>
> Would each resident have to be a renter, or could he
"own" his residence in
> the same way that a condominium owner owns his unit,
but not the whole
> building?
>
> What rights would an owner have to use or modify his
residence?