I disagree.If I "own" the land, I own the land. That the "state" can appropriate my land under the law is different than me being in mere "control" of "my" land, to the exclusion of all other "persons", at the pleasure of the state. The absence of any mention of land "ownership" in the Founding Document could have been intentional, see below; or unintentional, also see below.Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.
No person shall be.....nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
We all should understand and advocate that what is not stated that the "state" can do, or is stated that the "state" can not do, it is implicitly stated that only the people can or can not do.Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Facts are facts, the laws of society are such now that the excruciatingly simple concept of the "ownership" of land is now being questioned, the concept being made overly complex. The practicality of continued ownership of your land when the "state" deems it proper to appropriate your land is a different and complex issue. Kelo v. New London
A practical matter it is also, the continued ownership of my land, if I fail to pay Caesar his tribute.
This question regarding land ownership is part and parcel of the "living breathing" crowd.