Word choice for land gained through a kind-of eminent domain thingy
September 2, 2010 1:00 PM Subscribe
Word-choice: I am struggling to find just the right word to describe something I am writing about.
To give a short(ish) explanation: I am currently writing about a situation in which a private company did some public works and then was granted (by the government, against the will of the inhabitants) a large proportion of nearby land to repay them. Some of this land had been common land, some of it had been privately owned. It's a situation a lot like the one in New London, CT, where the city used eminent domain[sp?] to take away people's houses and give the property to developers.
I have at times used the word "enclosure" to describe the granting/losing (from the perspective of the commoners or previous owners) of this land, and that's been used by other people writing about this topic. But it's not entirely accurate because even those a lot of it was enclosed in the process of alienating it from the commons, some of it was already enclosed (enclosed just means owned by one person, not subject to use-rights, and fenced/ditched), and also there were other enclosures which happened at the same time which were not for the company but done for other people (including the commoners).
I have thought of variations of alienated, or appropriated -- any other ideas? "Land granted to" seems an awkward mouthful, and is not very clear.
To give a short(ish) explanation: I am currently writing about a situation in which a private company did some public works and then was granted (by the government, against the will of the inhabitants) a large proportion of nearby land to repay them. Some of this land had been common land, some of it had been privately owned. It's a situation a lot like the one in New London, CT, where the city used eminent domain[sp?] to take away people's houses and give the property to developers.
I have at times used the word "enclosure" to describe the granting/losing (from the perspective of the commoners or previous owners) of this land, and that's been used by other people writing about this topic. But it's not entirely accurate because even those a lot of it was enclosed in the process of alienating it from the commons, some of it was already enclosed (enclosed just means owned by one person, not subject to use-rights, and fenced/ditched), and also there were other enclosures which happened at the same time which were not for the company but done for other people (including the commoners).
I have thought of variations of alienated, or appropriated -- any other ideas? "Land granted to" seems an awkward mouthful, and is not very clear.
First, it is not enclosure. Enclosure was, by and large, a legal, if unethical process by which a former system of landholding was extincted by a much more extensive system (and efficient system of landholding).
The formal word you are seeking is "condemnation" which is the actual process involved in extinguishing the title of those holding the property taken from the original owners.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:16 PM on September 2, 2010
The formal word you are seeking is "condemnation" which is the actual process involved in extinguishing the title of those holding the property taken from the original owners.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:16 PM on September 2, 2010
Note that it is also commonly referred to as a taking. You might describe it as condemnation or taking for the benefit of a private party.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:18 PM on September 2, 2010
posted by Ironmouth at 1:18 PM on September 2, 2010
I like Given or Deeded...but, in passing, the New London folks did a bad thing (my view) in driving out people by declaring eminent domain in order to help a big pharmaceutical firm that wanted the land to build upon. Then, the homes demolished, the company changed its mind and the land remains vacant ever since.
posted by Postroad at 1:24 PM on September 2, 2010
posted by Postroad at 1:24 PM on September 2, 2010
Response by poster: Ironmouth: I know it was not an "enclosure" - that was why I don't want to use that word.
However, your definition of enclosure is wrong. An enclosure is when land subject to use-rights has those use-rights (most commonly grazing, but also other rights) extinguished; it is called an enclosure because this often required fencing that land away from other land which might have animals on it, whether that land was privately-owned open-field arable land (subject to use-rights for part of the year) or common pasture. It could be done by a lord of a manor by his right under the Statute of Merton, by others by agreement or (later) by Parliamentary Act. Interestingly, more land was enclosed in the seventeenth century (largely by agreement between farmers and landlords) than in either the eighteenth or nineteenth century alone. [Other definitions of "enclosure" may exist, but this is the one in the British early modern context, which is the origin of the word, the place of the phenomenon generally taken as the major example of "enclosures", and the setting for what I am writing about].
"Condemnation" seems a very obscure use of that word -- I think it would be confusing.
Allotted might be a good word - it's what they used sometimes at the time. But it seems a bit neutral - it was a very contentious action - and also it's the word used for the other enclosures (and I've been using allotted or lots for for those).
posted by jb at 1:26 PM on September 2, 2010
However, your definition of enclosure is wrong. An enclosure is when land subject to use-rights has those use-rights (most commonly grazing, but also other rights) extinguished; it is called an enclosure because this often required fencing that land away from other land which might have animals on it, whether that land was privately-owned open-field arable land (subject to use-rights for part of the year) or common pasture. It could be done by a lord of a manor by his right under the Statute of Merton, by others by agreement or (later) by Parliamentary Act. Interestingly, more land was enclosed in the seventeenth century (largely by agreement between farmers and landlords) than in either the eighteenth or nineteenth century alone. [Other definitions of "enclosure" may exist, but this is the one in the British early modern context, which is the origin of the word, the place of the phenomenon generally taken as the major example of "enclosures", and the setting for what I am writing about].
"Condemnation" seems a very obscure use of that word -- I think it would be confusing.
Allotted might be a good word - it's what they used sometimes at the time. But it seems a bit neutral - it was a very contentious action - and also it's the word used for the other enclosures (and I've been using allotted or lots for for those).
posted by jb at 1:26 PM on September 2, 2010
Best answer: You've probably realised this by now, but property under common law and subsequent legislation is a huge collection of patches and there is a correspondingly huge amount of specialised vocabulary. If you're writing for a non-lawyer audience then I suggest using the word "seized" in reference to the taking because of its related legal sense. In general English you might say "BigCorp seized the land", which implies that BigCorpbecame the owner against the original owners' wishes. The related legal term is "BigCorp became seized (or seised) of the land".
Once upon a time "became seized of" meant that BigCorp went through seisin, a symbolic act of acquiring the land from his feudal superior (his lord, hence "land-lord") but now it just means that BigCorp became the owner of the land.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:35 PM on September 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
Once upon a time "became seized of" meant that BigCorp went through seisin, a symbolic act of acquiring the land from his feudal superior (his lord, hence "land-lord") but now it just means that BigCorp became the owner of the land.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:35 PM on September 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
"Allotment" for me has connotations of government involvement, because of allotment gardening. From that Wikipedia entry I got the word "parcel" which could also be useful for you.
posted by lhall at 5:41 PM on September 2, 2010
posted by lhall at 5:41 PM on September 2, 2010
Response by poster: Joe (in A): I don't know if I will use seized, because I want to stress that this land wasn't directly taken by the corporation, but taken first by the government and then handed over to the corporation (in recompense for the money they spent - theorectically, they could have paid cash, but that wasn't realistic - but it means that the government was implicated in the whole thing). But I've marked your answer as a "best" because I like the feudal explanation. I've seen this use of "seized of" in early documents; I'll have to look up "seisin".
posted by jb at 9:21 PM on September 2, 2010
posted by jb at 9:21 PM on September 2, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by lhall at 1:03 PM on September 2, 2010