[pnw_hazor]

Back in the day, enrolled members of some tribes could sell land to non-members. I think most tribes prevent that now. Land sold to non-members became Fee property that can be owned by non-members or sold to non-members.

Depending on the reservation, you will find plenty of non-members that own property within the reservation.

[refurb]

Up in Canada some of the reservations do 99-years leases with developers.

They retain ownership, but can actually get something for it.

[azernik]

Interesting - that's how the Israel National Fund managed its land in the pre-state period.

[astrange]

It's how China works as far as I know. It's a pretty good system; it makes housing cheap (one of the worst problems in the US) and it's good for farmers because if you go bust, you can return the land to the village who owns it anyway.

[gruez]

What happens after 99 years? Are they expected/obligated to renew for a reasonable fee? What's preventing them from refusing to renew the leases after 99 years, and keeping the property (and whatever improvements on top) for themselves? It might not be an issue for the first or second generation of owners, but you'd expect the uncertainly to hurt the resale value of the property as the 99 years approaches.

[0xB31B1B]

you'd be surprised how common this agreement is. A lot of the skyscrapers in manhattan are/were built with this arrangement, where one party owns the land, and leases it to the developer who owns builds and maintains the building. Very interesting issues came up in some condos where the owners decided to spike the ground rent when the term was up. Also, as I understand it, pretty much all of the land in China is managed like this, as well as Singapore.

If you think about it, there isn't much of a difference between a 99 year lease and a 1-3% property tax.

[ridaj]

Ground rents are fairly common

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_rent

Yes it can hurt resale prospects, the longer into the lease you get. At the same time it can also lower upfront acquisition costs. Something to know when you get into it.

[alex-wallish]

Reminds me of a certain piece of land that Britain has a 99 year lease on. Hard for them to end well without a contractual option to extend under reasonable conditions.

[KMag]

> Britain has a 99 year lease on

If you're referring to the New Territories portion of Hong Kong, that lease was from 1898 to 1997. That lease expired almost 25 years ago.

[bobthepanda]

Also worth noting that basic property in Hong Kong still works the same way; there isn't really non-government owned land and all of it is leased. https://www.legco.gov.hk/research-publications/english/essen...

[KMag]

Except for the church behind my office [0], which is the only freehold in HK.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_John%27s_Cathedral_(Hong_Ko...

[Wohlf]

Does this depend on the reservation? I've heard of reservations where you basically couldn't build a permanent structure or get a building loan due to how the tribal land rules work.

It's kind of fascinating having these micro-nations that aren't quite nations within our borders, I should read more in to this subject.

[pnw_hazor]

Reservations are governed by their tribal government, often with side-agreements/compacts with local or State governments.

Real property within reservation borders is either deeded land or trust land. Deeded land can be sold without restriction. Trust land cannot be sold without approval of the US Bureau of Indian Affairs and/or the tribe.

Natural resources in reservations are usually managed by the tribe. Including hunting and fishing. Some let non-Indians or non-members hunt/fish some don't.

Except for a few exceptions, living on Indian reservations is no different than living anywhere else. Tribe made laws/rules do not apply to non-members -- unless the State or Feds says so. These are usually hunting rules. For example, the Colville Reservation in the State of Washington restricts non-members from hunting large game (deer, black bear, etc.) even if the game is on deeded landed. They can do this because there is a state law that says the same thing.

Also, generally tribes or tribal owned businesses cannot be sued in state or federal courts unless they agree to be sued (same/similar as States and the Federal government). Thus, persons have few rights when it comes to contract disputes, personal or workplace injuries, labor issues, and so on, that involve tribes or tribal owned businesses. Something to think about if one is considering employment or otherwise doing business with a tribe or tribal owned business.

"Tribes possess all powers of self-government except those relinquished under treaty with the United States, those that Congress has expressly extinguished, and those that federal courts have ruled are subject to existing federal law or are inconsistent with overriding national policies."

https://www.bia.gov/frequently-asked-questions