Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 February 10

= February 10 =

Interstate housing
There are occasional buildings in the USA that, through incompetent surveying, intentional placement, or other misadventure, are constructed on state lines, so that one part of the building's in one state and the other's in another. Some of these buildings are even houses; see David Mathews House and Merestone for a couple of examples. If you live in such a building, how is it decided where you live, pay taxes, go for voting, etc.? Is there some federal law that addresses this situation (i.e. it's treated as a kind of interstate commerce), or do states typically work out such situations through congressionally approved interstate compacts? Bonus points if you know how other provisions such as building codes are handled. I can only once before remember encountering the multistate building concept: in the film Sergeant York, York goes to a bar that's half in Tennessee and half in Kentucky, and because one state is dry while the other wet, the owner draws the state line on his floor and will only sell liquour from one side of the building. Nyttend (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's an international border, so a bit different, but the towns of Derby Line, Vermont and Stanstead, Quebec is instructive. See, for example, Haskell Free Library and Opera House and search Google for oddities there.  As far as state borders go, check out the history of the Pheasant Lane Mall in New Hampshire.  The original plans had it crossing the state border with Massachusetts, it had to be redesigned to keep it all within one state, so as to avoid headaches associated with two different tax codes.  Also see the Cal Neva Lodge & Casino, which is actually built across the border of California and Nevada.  The laws of California apply on their side of the building, thus there's no gambling on that side.  Here is a story of a building straddling the Netherlands-Germany international border, and the issues that causes.  The article on the United States Post Office and Courthouse (Texarkana, Arkansas-Texas) may be an interesting read for you; besides Texarkana, there's also Bristol, Virginia and Bristol, Tennessee or Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas City, Kansas, both of which are contiguous conurbations, and may likely have many buildings lying in both states.  Just some avenues for your research.  -- Jayron 32 01:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I started to write "Bristol's not likely to be relevant", because State Street goes down the line, but a quick Google Maps check shows that it turns south as you go east, and numerous subdivisions have houses on both sides. Nyttend (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Just as a further digression, when France surrendered in 1940, the Germans occupied the northern part of the country but left the southern part as a nominally independent country. Part of the boundary followed a river, but still divided a building because it extended across the river. --70.49.169.244 (talk) 08:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * In Baarle, where 23 little pieces of Belgium are surrounded by The Netherlands, some things – like where a household pays tax, iirc – depend on where the front door is. —Tamfang (talk) 09:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * List_of_enclaves_and_exclaves might be a place to look. In the USA, there's even a List_of_enclaves_in_Pennsylvania. Kentucky Bend probably deals with these issues too. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The PA enclaves is for things such as municipal enclaves, which aren't relevant because they're all governed by Pennsylvania law, unlike buildings on state lines, which might not be governable by just one state's laws. The Kentucky Bend isn't relevant: aside from an east-west line, where no houses are located, it's entirely surrounded by the river.  Does anyone know what's done specifically with houses that lie on borders?  Nyttend (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * In at least once case I know of (NY-CT line) the place of the main bedroom (or bed itself) governs the actual house location for taxation, with the land taxed proportionately on what part of the land is in which state. Post office addresses, by the way, are frequently different from the tax address of the house. Collect (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

anti-navigation treaty
In an article about the role of slavery in the early history of the United States ("The price of independence", University of Chicago Magazine, Sept–Oct 2010), I find this passage:
 * Northern states also accepted a sectional division of national territory through the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and, in return, informally agreed to abandon their efforts to obtain a Spanish treaty that would have closed the Mississippi River to navigation for decades.

Why would they seek such a treaty? —Tamfang (talk) 09:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * How bizarre. Even here in western Pennsylvania, the Ohio River was critical to the local economy for regional purposes; go farther west, and it was even more important in Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana, while in Illinois it was likewise critical (even though they have just a small chunk of it; the state's largest city of the period is on the Ohio), and the Mississippi River was important in the 1770s.  I wonder if the author's made a mistake?  Nyttend (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I just found the Jay-Gardoqui Treaty article; I think this is the treaty in question. It looks like the author's misunderstood somewhat or placed emphasis on a side element of the treaty.  Judging by our article, the treaty did lots of things, including giving commercial advantages to northern states; while it also had the effect of closing the Mississippi, that definitely wasn't the basic purpose of the treaty.  This treaty ultimately failed, as Congress didn't ratify it; apparently the author means that the northern states decided to stop attempting ratification.  Nyttend (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yea, "would have closed the Mississippi River" is the wrong wording, as it was already closed. "Accepted the continued closure of the Mississippi for 25 more years" would be the correct way to say it. StuRat (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)