>By way of a wholly non-Gloranthan diversion based on the above, the
>situation about land being saddled with obligations to repair the
>parish church dates from the time after tithing.
As you say later on the obligation was always there. It was just retained in the 1920s when it could have been scrapped.
>Whilst rooted in a much earlier system of law, the law which retained
>the obligation to repair the church roof was actually passed by
>Parliament some years after the partial clean-up of land law in the
>mid-1920s (and (coincidentally?) not long after the final abolition
>of tithing). The problem is not just that medievalism isn't abolished
>-- it is also that sometimes the abolition of medievalism is fudged.
This is a classic example of the problems with land law. Most of them are hidden in the deeds of the properties involved so no one knows about them until they become an issue. Parliament changes something and unintended consquences fall out for the next century or so.
>The modern legal controversy concerned whether the obligation imposed on a =
>private landowner to repair church buildings infringed the landowner's righ=
>t not to have a government body interfere with her ownership of private pro=
>perty and/or freedom of religious belief. (These only became positive right=
>s in English law in 2000 with the passing of a Human Rights Act, so such a =
>challenge based on fundamental principles could only have been made in rece=
>nt times).
>
>The landowner's claim failed because the rights and duties in relation
>to the ownership of land were not connected to religious belief, and
>because the decision of the local church council to demand that the
>landowner pay for the repairs to the church roof was considered to be
>more like=A0a private action between two landowners than the exercise
>of state power against a private citizen.
The legal case is decided but the farmer is ruined and the church not repaired. No one will buy the land so it will become derelict.
>The modern practise is to make sure before you buy land that this isn't
>an issue, or if it is, to take out insurance against getting a large
>bill from the church.
That'll stave off the problem for a while but if the obligations exceed the income generated from the land the insurance premiums will leave the owner out of pocket.
Eventually either parliament will have to abolish such obligations or the state will end up with them. Because onerous property reverts to the crown if abandoned which executors and bankruptcy trustees can do.
>I wrote about the case for The [London] Times when it first broke,
>hence my anorakish interest in the subject.
It's only the current high profile issue. There are and will be others.
Dragging the subject back to Glorantha this sort of thing is potentially a great source of stories. How does a community pay for communal resources? What do we do when the traditional method of funding fails to work? Whose fault is it? How are the PCs going to fix it?
The specific problems and answers are going to depend on the society involved.
-- Donald Oddy http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Powered by hypermail