Third-party authority limits how far colonizers can privatize public space.

Evidence

However, with the support, or at least neutrality, of those in charge, colonizers may display their proprietary rights to such an extent that the space in question can be said to be public only in the most technical sense. … Inasmuch as the Hangout is defined first as a public drinking place and only alternatively as a home territory for homosexuals, the degree to which the invasion of outsiders can be curtailed by the indigenous population is limited. The interest of the owner in maintaining the bar as a profitable establishment tends to set the limits on the degree to which the bar can be converted into a private territory. In this sense, then, no outsider can be forceably removed from the area unless he can be categorized as a public nuisance. … But on the part of the indigenous population, the difference between legitimate customers and public nuisances is often vague and in general almost all outsiders are classified somewhere in between, as objects which can be officially treated in improper ways. — Lyn H. Lofland, World of Strangers_ Order and Action in…, 764

Categorization

• XREF: The owner’s profit interest capping territorial claims parallels how the state caps what ordinary urban territorialization can achieve in public space—resonates with Lofland’s broader architecture of public space governance.