Access to Public Access to Private Property (Roads?)
I completely get the argument that private property needs public access to exist. But, I'm not entirely convinced that roads qualify as the kind of "public" access that's really needed for this idea to work.
Ripstein outlines an important problem—not only that your neighbor is entitled to determine whether you can cross their property or not, but that they therefore determine whether one person can enter into voluntary agreements with another. He then outlines the solution: “roads, understood as a system of public rights of way, guaranteeing that there is a path from every piece of privately held land to every other” (248). He furthers it, saying, "The system as a whole must make it possible to get from any piece of land to any other...public in the sense of being open to all as a matter of right, rather than available only to some specific person or group of persons."(249)
But here's the thing: aren't roads really only accessible to those who can afford cars? It's easy to see how this system might not work if you don't have the financial means to get a car. But someone might suggest buses as an alternative? Or bikes, walking? Sure, those are options in densely populated cities, but none are compatible with the current interstate highway system that is necessary for traveling farther distances.
When the interstate highway system was developed in the 1950s, it empowered those living in suburban areas, making it easier for those people to travel long distances quickly and efficiently. But it also had negative consequences for those in cities, particularly low-income residents and people of color. The creation of these highways led to the displacement of entire neighborhoods, often with little regard for the people who lived there before the roads were built. For many, the "public" nature of these roads don't guarantee equal access. It simply meant that certain groups of people, often those with more wealth or resources, could take advantage of them, while others were left behind.
Ripstein envisions a public road system where "no private person will have either the right to exclude others or the right to use the road for whatever purpose he or she pleases" (250). Ideally, roads should be open to all, accessible on equal terms. However, the way roads are structured today, combined with the costs of owning a car, and the prioritization of certain modes of transport (cars + trucks), doesn’t quite live up to the ideal of open to all.
So, while roads may technically be "public" in name, they often function more like a system of access only for those with the resources to use them effectively. Overall, roads, as they exist today, are not the universal means of access Repstein requires them to be.
Hey! Writing to disagree with you on the effectivity of public roads in securing public access to private areas. You write, "aren't roads really only accessible to those can afford cars?" I would respond, "No, but it certainly helps." For travelling short distances, you bring up alternative methods of roadway use--buses and bikes. I would add walking and trains as additional methods, recognizing that "road" really just means a public means of travelling from private point a to private point b. Under this definition, a footpath is a road, as well as a traintrack. Importantly, all of these methods are massively less expensive than purchasing and maintaining a personal car. Your point still stands that driving a car in our car-centric infrastructure is generally preferred. Yet, Ripstein's claim is not that there must be equal use of equal means, only that there must be equal access. There is no law preventing poor people from obtaining a drivers' license. There may be roadblocks (no pun intended), such as training, the cost of taking the time to go to the DMV, etc, but it is accessible.
ReplyDeleteReturning to the alternative methods. Cars are easily substitutable in settings with the highest barrier to car-ownership--cities. Cities have a higher cost of gas, parking, and the physical car itself. Consequently, cities also have the most substitutes for cars. Take the bus, take the train, walk a few blocks, bike a few blocks, etc. In these settings, equal access to public roadways are maintained.
In long-distance rural settings, where many of the car substitutes become unavailable, some of the substitutes remain. Greyhound bus, for example, can get you across the country for $250, hardly an impassible barrier to road use. Additionally, travelling cross-country is a much lower-demand activity, where I would argue that the state's responsibility in providing equal access for all through car substitutes is lessened.
Finally, yes, I agree with what you say about interstate highways. Based on Shelby, as well as a google search, that implementation of public roads was tragic and inequality-perpetuating. What I'm attempting to say in this blog post is that public roads are more than just the 8 lane highway from the suburbs to downtown. Public roads are also the subways and train stations. They are the city streets and sidewalks, with bikers and pedestrians enjoying public access.
Hey all, I agree with your point Gabe that public access doesn't just include roads. But I think the point is that sidewalks, city streets, train tracks, bike lanes, and other forms of transportation don't exist in many areas. In those areas, Ripstein's claim of equal access doesn't seem to hold to me. If I buy a piece of land in the middle of nowhere Missouri where the only way to reach it is off of a frontage road on an interstate highway. I could, in theory, walk or bike on the highway to get to my property but that is at considerable risk to my safety, in a way that I think would constitute unequal access. That could be thrown into the category of actions that others do that harm but don't wrong (which I think is a very interesting category and brings up Violet's airplane point) in which case I do have access to my piece of land just with justifiable risks? But there is definitely a case where highways are not access and now there are large swaths of land that I do not have the freedom to own, because I don't have access to that land, because I don't have a car. So Ripstein wouldn't think his threshold of equal access is met.
Delete