Comments on: Rotorua lakes

By: David Farrar

David Farrar — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 10:27:44 +0000

ztev – if owning a lake bed now includes the air space above, the simple solution is to keep lake beds in public ownership.

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 12 Oct 2004 02:08:47 +0000

So is there a maximum height above the property at which I may exercise exclusive possession? I understood the common law says that it extends to the “heavens and beyond” but charging airlines for flying over your property is against public policy. Similarly charging for someone bungy jumping over your property is against public policy. If not the case, this will create a major precedent.

By: ztev

ztev — Mon, 11 Oct 2004 23:14:10 +0000

So you are on the side of Tuwharetoa when it comes to property rights then.
The airspace is only that of any landowner, just let a neighbours tree have a branch reach over your boundary and block your view and out will come the saw to establish your proerty right.
The nonsense put about by dimwits like Holmes that they can charge the airlines flying Auckland wellington-( actually they fly over Mt Taranaki)is just what we expect these days. And this from a supposed pilot who had to land in an emergency on someones paddock.
Like a bulding in Queen Street selling its air rights, you can only claim something that you can enjoy, which is the immediate area above the land.
The Crown owns the mineral rights beneath the ground though so if there is oil 2000ft below its not yours