Unfortunately land will fall into disrepair if someone doesn't actually own it. They have no incentive to invest in its upkeep if it can just be taken away at any moment. There's a reason rental buildings have a reputation for being unkempt, the renters don't want to pay for the upkeep since it's not theirs and the landlords don't want to pay for the upkeep because they don't live there.

It gets even worse if government owns it, it would take 6 months just to get a light bulb changed let alone a new roof or hedges trimmed.

[–] Varan1@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Land that falls into "disrepair" has already been savaged, devastated and altered by greedy human hands in the first place.

[–] ruplicant@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago

so i guess over 20% of houses in Austria, Netherlands, or Denmark have no lights and leaking roofs. if only those people got their own...

[–] snake_cased@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago

That might be the case in your country, but there are many cultures that are perfectly capable of sharing and keeping common infrastructure in good conditions. Your personal experience isn't generic and globally true.

A country's land should not be owned by individuals, in my opinion, but used by those who need it and when they do so. A country's land is what makes it a land, so it cannot be owned or sold. Someone inheriting it from someone who took it and maybe sold it should give no legitimate claim to possession.