Papers on the Ontology of Real Estate

Barry Smith and Leonardo Zaibert, “Prolegomena to a Metaphysics of Real Estate”, in Roberto Casati (ed.), Shadows and Socio-Economic Units. Foundations of Formal Geography, Department of Geoinformation, Technical University of Vienna, 1996, 151–155.

Abstract: As an object in which property rights can be invested, land is a peculiar hybrid structure that comprehends both spatial and non-spatial aspects. Even in its purely spatial aspect land is treated differently from culture to culture, thus for example in the degree to which property rights in land are held to relate to vague or precisely delineated parcels and to portions of space above and below the surface of the earth. When we examine the non-spatial aspects of landed property, however, the dimensions of variability across cultures are multiplied tremendously. The goal is to provide a general framework for comparison of different socio-legal ontologies of land. The relevance of this project turns on the fact that without land (or real estate) it is difficult (perhaps impossible) to obtain credit; without credit it is difficult for nations to develop. Thus, if land is treated in a radically different way from one nation to another, this will surely exert an effect upon the development of nations.

Barry Smith and Leo Zaibert, “The Metaphysics of Real Estate”, in Christoph Schlieder, Erik Stubkjaer and Heiner Stuckenschmidt (eds.), Von der Theorie zur Praxis: Entwicklung und Transfer von Informatik-Technologien. Papers of the Kick-Off Meeting of the COST Action G9 “Modeling Real-Property Transactions’, Bremen, Nov. 1-3, 2001, University of Bremen, Fachbereich Mathematik/Informatik, 2001, 19–21.

Abstract: The parceling of land into real estate is more than a simple geometrical affair. Real estate is a historical product of interaction between human beings, political, legal and economic institutions, and the physical environment. And while many authors, from Jeremy Bentham to Hernando de Soto, have drawn attention to the ontological (metaphysical) aspect of property in general, no comprehensive analysis of landed property has been attempted.  The paper presents such an analysis and shows how landed property differs from other types of property in a way which implies a special role for political and economic philosophy of property rights in land.roduct of interaction between human beings, political, legal and economic institutions, and the physical environment. And while many authors, from Jeremy Bentham to Hernando de Soto, have drawn attention to the ontological (metaphysical) aspect of property in general, no comprehensive analysis of landed property has been attempted.  The paper presents such an analysis and shows how landed property differs from other types of property in a way which implies a special role for political and economic philosophy of property rights in land.

Barry Smith and Leonardo Zaibert, “The Metaphysics of Real Estate”, Topoi, 20: 2 (September 2001), 161–172.

Abstract: The parceling of land into real estate is more than a simple geometrical affair. Real estate is a historical product of interaction between human beings, political, legal and economic institutions, and the physical environment. And while many authors, from Jeremy Bentham to Hernando de Soto, have drawn attention to the ontological (metaphysical) aspect of property in general, no comprehensive analysis of landed property has been attempted. The paper presents such an analysis and shows how landed property differs from other types of property in a way which implies a special role for political and economic philosophy of property rights in land.

Barry Smith and Leo Zaibert, “Real Estate: Foundations of the Ontology of Property”, in Heiner Stuckenschmidt, Erik Stubjkaer and Christoph Schlieder (eds.), The Ontology and Modelling of Real Estate Transactions, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003, 51–67.

Abstract: Suppose you own a garden-variety object such as a hat or a shirt. Your property right then follows the ageold saw according to which possession is nine-tenths of the law. That is, your possession of a shirt constitutes a strong presumption in favor of your ownership of the shirt. In the case of land, however, this is not the case. Here possession is not only not a strong presumption in favor of ownership; it is not even clear what possession is. Possessing a thing like a hat or a shirt is a rather straightforward affair: the person wearing the hat or shirt possesses the shirt or the hat. But what is possession in the case of land? This essay seeks to provide an answer to this question in the form of an ontology of landed property.

Barry Smith, “On Place and Space: The Ontology of the Eruv”, in C. Kanzian (ed.), Cultures: Conflict – Analysis – Dialogue, Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag, 2007, 403-416.

Abstract: ‘Eruv’ is a Hebrew word meaning literally ‘mixture’ or ‘mingling’. An eruv is an urban region demarcated within a larger urban region by means of a boundary made up of telephone wires or similar markers. Through the creation of the eruv, the smaller region is turned symbolically (halachically = according to Jewish law) into a private domain. So long as they remain within the boundaries of the eruv, Orthodox Jews may engage in activities that would otherwise be prohibited on the Sabbath, such as pushing prams or wheelchairs, or carrying walking sticks. There are eruvim in many towns and university campuses throughout the world. There are five eruvim in Chicago, five in Brooklyn, twenty three in Queens and Long Island, and at least three in Manhattan. The US Supreme Court is (like most other major US Federal Government buildings) located within the eruv of Washington DC. In many cases, not all of those living within or near the area of an actual or proposed eruv will themselves be Orthodox Jews, and this has sometimes led to protests against eruv creation. It is such protests which triggered the writing of this essay.