The main residential areas are classified as follows:.

Low Density Residential Zone (ZRBD) - 17 homes per hectare.

Medium Density Residential Zone (ZRMD) - 25 homes per hectare.

Medium High Density Residential Zone (ZRMAD) - 40 homes per hectare.

High Density Residential Zone (ZRAD) - 50 homes per hectare.

High High Density Residential Zone (ZRAAD) - 67 homes per hectare.

Private property is inviolable, this is the first sentence of the first paragraph, of article No. 45 of the Political Constitution, in which the principle of the inviolability of private property is clear. This is conceived as an affectation of an asset in favor of the administrator; the latter is conferred with the legal power to dispose of it. Such power of disposition must be considered legal, because it implies for its holder the possibility of coercively enforcing it with respect to the other subjects of the legal system, who have the correlative obligation to refrain from disturbing that right. (Costa Rica. Laws, 2008).

This right is made up of all the attributes of property and includes consumer goods, productive goods, in general, property as a means of production. The essential attributions of ownership are part of the property right: possession, use and enjoyment, transformation, disposition, defense and vindication. (Costa Rica. Laws, 2008)

However, the concept of absolute private property, in which the owner can do anything he wants, whenever he decides, is only a fact used as a historical reference. In which the right of property implied complete dominion over the property, in an absolute, general, independent, full, universal, unlimited and exclusive manner. (Vote of the Constitutional Chamber, 2002).

It is necessary, therefore, to recognize the owner of the right to an asset as part of a socioeconomic community and as such is the owner of a series of rights of an economic nature and other benefits or social rights. That is to say, just as individual freedom finds its limit in the freedom or rights of others because the coexistence of the beings that make up society requires it, in the same way the powers inherent to the domain are subject to certain encumbrances and restrictions, in favor of neighborly relations and for the benefit of real estate. (Brenes, 2001).

Likewise, the legitimacy of restrictions on fundamental rights is subordinated to a series of principles, for example:

1. • They must be called to satisfy an imperative public interest;

2. • To achieve this public interest, one must choose among several options that restricts the protected right on a smaller scale;

3. • The restriction must be proportionate to the interest that justifies it and strictly adjust to the achievement of that objective;

4. • The restriction must be socially imperative, and therefore exceptional. (Constitutional Chamber vote 3550, 1992).

Although Costa Rican legislation uses the terms “public utility” and “public interest” interchangeably, the concept of public is related to the function of the state, as guarantor of Rights and as protector of the factors that are part of the state patrimony. Thus, we have that all natural resources, by constitutional mandate, belong to the State, article 121 paragraph 14. In such a way that, if a mineral, water or other resource deposit is found on private property; The property must be expropriated, so that the State can protect and/or manage these resources for public purposes. That is, they benefit the community in general. Of course, this must occur after compensation as established in the first paragraph of article 45 of the Constitution. The property would face the same fate if it were affected or dismembered by the construction of a highway or public thoroughfare.

The existence of unlimited Rights is not possible in a State of Law, since it contradicts the nature of articulating a system of limits between the positions of all subjects, and an unlimited subjective right could be the cause of the destruction of the legal order, that is, it could be incompatible with it. The mission of the Law is not to make exceptions to the supposed prior limitation of fundamental rights, but precisely to design and define them for the purpose of their articulation within the social concert. This is no exception in the case of the regulation of property rights, the indisputable and direct creation of the legal system (Constitutional Chamber vote 06524, 1998).

Therefore, the limitations to the right of property are a product of the very fact of being part of a community, the same one that guarantees that right, but that subjects it to certain regulations in order to achieve an optimal and harmonious enjoyment of the rights of all individuals and that are characterized, as a principle thesis, by not being compensable. In the specific case of property right, the system of intrinsic or internal limitations refers to the proper or essential content of the property right, minimum content that has been defined as the power to enjoy and use the good for personal benefit in the case of private property, or for social utility in the case of public property; and the system of external limitations of property is made up of limitations of social interest, which are of legislative origin and of maximum institutional importance, requiring legislative approval with a reinforced majority for their imposition (Constitutional Chamber vote 06524, 1998).

The concept of property in urban planning law has been considered of various types, such as urban property, rural property and industrial property, that is, depending on the function that the property is entrusted with and performs in life in society.

Urban property is subject to a series of characteristics, for example:

1. • It is a delimited property (boundaries, party walls, volumetric property -third dimension-).

2. • It is subject to a specific destination, defined in a regulatory plan or zoning regulation, a purpose that cannot be changed by the owner, but is limitable and regulated by the respective authorities - local governments, in the first instance.

3. • The use of the property is restrictive and sometimes mandatory.

4. • The property plays a particular role, even temporary, since it moves within the validity of a regulatory plan, so since the plan can be modified by the authority, the uses of the property could also be changed.

5. • In this sense, the limitations imposed on property by a regulatory plan must be understood as lawful limitations.

6. • The impact on the property has the character of "limitation", that is, the property is subject to a series of restrictions and obligations (parceling), reparcelling, selling, building, conserving, enclosing, construction permits, height of facades, setbacks, vehicle parking, habitability permits, plot areas, etc.), the purpose of which is to contribute to the collective well-being, and therefore, to their own benefit; it is understood that they cannot be of such nature that imply the extinction or unbearable limitation that empties the property right of content, since they would imply a hidden expropriation, and must consequently be compensated (Constitutional Chamber vote 06524, 1998).

It is for the benefit of the socioeconomic community that the Political Constitution, in the second paragraph of article 45, incorporates the concept of the social in property by establishing that: due to public need, -this part is linked to the function of the State-, limitations of social interest may be imposed on property, -the social is linked to harmony and the duty to put property at the service of social needs-. Given the importance of these limitations on property, the constituent establishes, in the same article 45, that only the Legislative Assembly may establish it, through the vote of two thirds of all its members.

This second group of limitations on property includes the restrictions established by municipal corporations, by virtue of the existence of a territorial planning plan. In addition, all the limitations established in the Civil Code, General Health Law, laws for the protection of flora and fauna, as well as the Historical Heritage Protection law are part of this set.

Even though it is not the purpose of this study, two elements found through observation and personal approach to the inhabitants of the canton should be mentioned (this is an empirical study):

The first has to do with the participation of the inhabitants of the canton, in the proposals to create or improve the Regulatory Plan of the canton. In an interview with Engineer José Fabio Corrales, he indicated that people tend to be apathetic in participating in this type of municipal events, in 2005 and 2006 there was a lot of dissemination of the Regulatory Plan, however citizen participation has been low (Corrales, 2009). Apathy is a distortion, which can be reduced if the means of communication appropriate to the target population are used. In this sense, there must be different adaptations that result from an adequate study of the customs of the cantonal population. Achieving greater sensitivity in the population will allow the message to reach greater depth, and as a consequence concerns will arise that will allow reorienting the regulations that harm them, whether by action or omission.

The second element is related to the agricultural activity of the canton; the city council does not have a professional in agronomy. Agriculture is not included in the Regulatory Plan, they are being exterminated by omission, due to the erosion of the necessary land, in the technology they use and the chemical products applied to the plantations; They have been considered a threat to the area, especially if we take into account that they are located near the hills of Escazú, an area of ​​special attention due to the risk of landslides and because a network of aquifers is woven beneath the subsoil, whose current map is not reliable. Contemporary agricultural technologies allow the existence of crops without the threat to the environment. This challenge must be assumed by the municipality, before farmers become extinct due to the omission of the Regulatory Plan. Preserving the culture of the herdsman, the farmer's language and other customs of the canton are chapters still pending by the canton authorities.

Bibliography

Brenes, C. A. (2001). Property Treaty. San José, C. R.: Juricentro.

Horses, d. l. (2006). Elementary Legal Dictionary. Buenos Aires: Heliasta.

Castilian, E. i. (1995). Encyclopedic Dictionary. Barcelona: OCEAN.

Corrales, I. J. (July 7, 2009). Scope of the Escazú Regulatory Plan. (D. Rocha, Interviewer)

Costa Rica, l. s. (January 27, 2003). Reform of article 169 of law No. 7052, of November 13, 1986. Reform to make the beneficiary of the housing voucher full owner. San José, Costa Rica: Department of Parliamentary Services, File 15107.

Costa Rica. Laws, d. and. (2008). Political Constitution of the Republic of Costa Rica / comp. by Rubén Hernández Valle. San José: JURICENTRO.

Municipality of Escazú. (January 17, 2005). REGULATORY PLAN FOR THE CANTON OF ESCAZÚ. REGULATORY PLAN FOR THE CANTON OF ESCAZÚ. Escazú, San José, Costa Rica.

Rica, C. (1968). Urban Planning Law No4240. Urban Planning Law No4240. Saint Joseph.

Constitutional Chamber vote 06524. (1998). San Jose, Costa Rica.

Constitutional Chamber vote 3550. (1992). San Jose, Costa Rica.

Vote of the Constitutional Chamber, 1484 (CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE February 13, 2002).

The main residential areas are classified as follows:.

Low Density Residential Zone (ZRBD) - 17 homes per hectare.

Medium Density Residential Zone (ZRMD) - 25 homes per hectare.

Medium High Density Residential Zone (ZRMAD) - 40 homes per hectare.

High Density Residential Zone (ZRAD) - 50 homes per hectare.

High High Density Residential Zone (ZRAAD) - 67 homes per hectare.

Private property is inviolable, this is the first sentence of the first paragraph, of article No. 45 of the Political Constitution, in which the principle of the inviolability of private property is clear. This is conceived as an affectation of an asset in favor of the administrator; the latter is conferred with the legal power to dispose of it. Such power of disposition must be considered legal, because it implies for its holder the possibility of coercively enforcing it with respect to the other subjects of the legal system, who have the correlative obligation to refrain from disturbing that right. (Costa Rica. Laws, 2008).

This right is made up of all the attributes of property and includes consumer goods, productive goods, in general, property as a means of production. The essential attributions of ownership are part of the property right: possession, use and enjoyment, transformation, disposition, defense and vindication. (Costa Rica. Laws, 2008)

However, the concept of absolute private property, in which the owner can do anything he wants, whenever he decides, is only a fact used as a historical reference. In which the right of property implied complete dominion over the property, in an absolute, general, independent, full, universal, unlimited and exclusive manner. (Vote of the Constitutional Chamber, 2002).

It is necessary, therefore, to recognize the owner of the right to an asset as part of a socioeconomic community and as such is the owner of a series of rights of an economic nature and other benefits or social rights. That is to say, just as individual freedom finds its limit in the freedom or rights of others because the coexistence of the beings that make up society requires it, in the same way the powers inherent to the domain are subject to certain encumbrances and restrictions, in favor of neighborly relations and for the benefit of real estate. (Brenes, 2001).

Likewise, the legitimacy of restrictions on fundamental rights is subordinated to a series of principles, for example:

1. • They must be called to satisfy an imperative public interest;

2. • To achieve this public interest, one must choose among several options that restricts the protected right on a smaller scale;

3. • The restriction must be proportionate to the interest that justifies it and strictly adjust to the achievement of that objective;

4. • The restriction must be socially imperative, and therefore exceptional. (Constitutional Chamber vote 3550, 1992).

Although Costa Rican legislation uses the terms “public utility” and “public interest” interchangeably, the concept of public is related to the function of the state, as guarantor of Rights and as protector of the factors that are part of the state patrimony. Thus, we have that all natural resources, by constitutional mandate, belong to the State, article 121 paragraph 14. In such a way that, if a mineral, water or other resource deposit is found on private property; The property must be expropriated, so that the State can protect and/or manage these resources for public purposes. That is, they benefit the community in general. Of course, this must occur after compensation as established in the first paragraph of article 45 of the Constitution. The property would face the same fate if it were affected or dismembered by the construction of a highway or public thoroughfare.

The existence of unlimited Rights is not possible in a State of Law, since it contradicts the nature of articulating a system of limits between the positions of all subjects, and an unlimited subjective right could be the cause of the destruction of the legal order, that is, it could be incompatible with it. The mission of the Law is not to make exceptions to the supposed prior limitation of fundamental rights, but precisely to design and define them for the purpose of their articulation within the social concert. This is no exception in the case of the regulation of property rights, the indisputable and direct creation of the legal system (Constitutional Chamber vote 06524, 1998).

Therefore, the limitations to the right of property are a product of the very fact of being part of a community, the same one that guarantees that right, but that subjects it to certain regulations in order to achieve an optimal and harmonious enjoyment of the rights of all individuals and that are characterized, as a principle thesis, by not being compensable. In the specific case of property right, the system of intrinsic or internal limitations refers to the proper or essential content of the property right, minimum content that has been defined as the power to enjoy and use the good for personal benefit in the case of private property, or for social utility in the case of public property; and the system of external limitations of property is made up of limitations of social interest, which are of legislative origin and of maximum institutional importance, requiring legislative approval with a reinforced majority for their imposition (Constitutional Chamber vote 06524, 1998).

The concept of property in urban planning law has been considered of various types, such as urban property, rural property and industrial property, that is, depending on the function that the property is entrusted with and performs in life in society.

Urban property is subject to a series of characteristics, for example:

1. • It is a delimited property (boundaries, party walls, volumetric property -third dimension-).

2. • It is subject to a specific destination, defined in a regulatory plan or zoning regulation, a purpose that cannot be changed by the owner, but is limitable and regulated by the respective authorities - local governments, in the first instance.

3. • The use of the property is restrictive and sometimes mandatory.

4. • The property plays a particular role, even temporary, since it moves within the validity of a regulatory plan, so since the plan can be modified by the authority, the uses of the property could also be changed.

5. • In this sense, the limitations imposed on property by a regulatory plan must be understood as lawful limitations.

6. • The impact on the property has the character of "limitation", that is, the property is subject to a series of restrictions and obligations (parceling), reparcelling, selling, building, conserving, enclosing, construction permits, height of facades, setbacks, vehicle parking, habitability permits, plot areas, etc.), the purpose of which is to contribute to the collective well-being, and therefore, to their own benefit; it is understood that they cannot be of such nature that imply the extinction or unbearable limitation that empties the property right of content, since they would imply a hidden expropriation, and must consequently be compensated (Constitutional Chamber vote 06524, 1998).

It is for the benefit of the socioeconomic community that the Political Constitution, in the second paragraph of article 45, incorporates the concept of the social in property by establishing that: due to public need, -this part is linked to the function of the State-, limitations of social interest may be imposed on property, -the social is linked to harmony and the duty to put property at the service of social needs-. Given the importance of these limitations on property, the constituent establishes, in the same article 45, that only the Legislative Assembly may establish it, through the vote of two thirds of all its members.

This second group of limitations on property includes the restrictions established by municipal corporations, by virtue of the existence of a territorial planning plan. In addition, all the limitations established in the Civil Code, General Health Law, laws for the protection of flora and fauna, as well as the Historical Heritage Protection law are part of this set.

Even though it is not the purpose of this study, two elements found through observation and personal approach to the inhabitants of the canton should be mentioned (this is an empirical study):

The first has to do with the participation of the inhabitants of the canton, in the proposals to create or improve the Regulatory Plan of the canton. In an interview with Engineer José Fabio Corrales, he indicated that people tend to be apathetic in participating in this type of municipal events, in 2005 and 2006 there was a lot of dissemination of the Regulatory Plan, however citizen participation has been low (Corrales, 2009). Apathy is a distortion, which can be reduced if the means of communication appropriate to the target population are used. In this sense, there must be different adaptations that result from an adequate study of the customs of the cantonal population. Achieving greater sensitivity in the population will allow the message to reach greater depth, and as a consequence concerns will arise that will allow reorienting the regulations that harm them, whether by action or omission.

The second element is related to the agricultural activity of the canton; the city council does not have a professional in agronomy. Agriculture is not included in the Regulatory Plan, they are being exterminated by omission, due to the erosion of the necessary land, in the technology they use and the chemical products applied to the plantations; They have been considered a threat to the area, especially if we take into account that they are located near the hills of Escazú, an area of ​​special attention due to the risk of landslides and because a network of aquifers is woven beneath the subsoil, whose current map is not reliable. Contemporary agricultural technologies allow the existence of crops without the threat to the environment. This challenge must be assumed by the municipality, before farmers become extinct due to the omission of the Regulatory Plan. Preserving the culture of the herdsman, the farmer's language and other customs of the canton are chapters still pending by the canton authorities.

Bibliography

Brenes, C. A. (2001). Property Treaty. San José, C. R.: Juricentro.

Horses, d. l. (2006). Elementary Legal Dictionary. Buenos Aires: Heliasta.

Castilian, E. i. (1995). Encyclopedic Dictionary. Barcelona: OCEAN.

Corrales, I. J. (July 7, 2009). Scope of the Escazú Regulatory Plan. (D. Rocha, Interviewer)

Costa Rica, l. s. (January 27, 2003). Reform of article 169 of law No. 7052, of November 13, 1986. Reform to make the beneficiary of the housing voucher full owner. San José, Costa Rica: Department of Parliamentary Services, File 15107.

Costa Rica. Laws, d. and. (2008). Political Constitution of the Republic of Costa Rica / comp. by Rubén Hernández Valle. San José: JURICENTRO.

Municipality of Escazú. (January 17, 2005). REGULATORY PLAN FOR THE CANTON OF ESCAZÚ. REGULATORY PLAN FOR THE CANTON OF ESCAZÚ. Escazú, San José, Costa Rica.

Rica, C. (1968). Urban Planning Law No4240. Urban Planning Law No4240. Saint Joseph.

Constitutional Chamber vote 06524. (1998). San Jose, Costa Rica.

Constitutional Chamber vote 3550. (1992). San Jose, Costa Rica.

Vote of the Constitutional Chamber, 1484 (CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE February 13, 2002).