This is part of a series on nonviolent protest methods, which explains approaches and provides inspirational examples from history. For additional resources, please explore the Museum of Protest’s activist guides and view items in the collection.

Protest movements aren’t only fought with marches and slogans – they can also be waged through strategic non-cooperation.

One powerful method is refusing to let or sell property, a tactic noted by scholar Gene Sharp in his famous list of nonviolent resistance methods. This tactic involves property owners standing firm and withholding their land, buildings, or goods from an oppressive power or unjust system.

By refusing to rent out or sell property to a targeted person, company, or government, resisters can deny their opponent the resources and facilities needed to operate.

Understanding the Method: What Is “Refusal to Let or Sell Property”?

“Refusal to Let or Sell Property” is a form of economic boycott in which owners of property deliberately refuse to rent or sell their property to certain parties as an act of protest or resistance. Gene Sharp describes this method as occurring when “owners of houses or other buildings or property may refuse to offer them for rent or sale to certain persons or groups”. In practice, this means a landlord might decline to lease a building to a regime’s officials, a homeowner might refuse to sell land needed for an unjust project, or merchants might withhold goods and facilities from an occupying force. By doing so, the owners boycott the would-be buyers or renters, denying them the use of that property.

This tactic functions as part of economic noncooperation – it’s essentially the inverse of a consumer boycott. Instead of customers refusing to buy from an unjust business, here the owners refuse to provide or sell to an unjust actor. It falls under what Sharp classifies as “action by owners and management” within methods of economic boycott. The idea is straightforward: if those in power rely on your property or resources, you simply don’t give it to them. This nonviolent refusal can create real obstacles for the opponent. For example, an authoritarian government might find itself unable to obtain buildings for offices or land for projects if local owners collectively won’t cooperate.

How does it work? This method leverages the rights of ownership as a tool of resistance. Owners usually have legal and moral authority over their property – they can choose whom to do business with. In a protest scenario, owners use that authority to withdraw support from the target of the protest. It’s a way of saying, “I won’t allow what I own to be used in support of injustice.”

By letting property sit idle rather than letting it serve the opponent, resisters apply economic pressure. The targeted entity may have to spend more money, time, and effort to find alternative facilities or resources – or be unable to proceed at all. Importantly, refusal to sell or rent property is nonviolent: it doesn’t harm anyone physically, yet it can be confrontational. It often works in tandem with other nonviolent tactics. For instance, it might accompany strikes, petitions, or legal action to strengthen a campaign.

The power of the method comes from solidarity and scarcity – if enough owners unite in refusing, the opponent cannot easily circumvent the boycott by simply going to a different seller.

Using This Tactic Effectively

When employed thoughtfully, refusing to let or sell property can significantly bolster a protest or resistance movement. Here are some key insights for using this method effectively:

Coordinate and Unite with Others: This tactic is most effective when done collectively. A single owner’s refusal might be a minor inconvenience, but if many owners in a community take part, it can seriously thwart the opponent’s plans. Solidarity among property owners – whether they are homeowners, landlords, farmers, or business managers – creates a robust boycott that the opponent cannot easily bypass. The more unified the front, the more pressure on the target.

Identify Critical Resources or Properties: Refusal is most powerful when the property in question is something the opponent truly needs. For example, land needed for a major infrastructure project, a building needed for government offices or a factory, or resources like livestock or equipment essential to the opponent’s operations. By focusing on strategic property (e.g. a key parcel of land along a pipeline route), resisters can create a big impact. Denying such critical needs raises the economic and practical costs for the opponent.

Maintain a Nonpartisan, Principle-Based Stance: For credibility and broad support, protesters should frame their refusal in terms of principle and rights, not narrow self-interest. Emphasizing reasons like justice, community well-being, or defense of rights can win public sympathy. A nonpartisan tone – stating that any buyer or regime doing X unjust thing would be refused – helps show the moral high ground. This can attract allies (such as legal defenders, media, or public figures) who respect the stance that one should not be forced to aid wrongdoing.

Prepare for Legal and Political Pushback: Refusing to sell or rent property can provoke strong reactions. Opponents may attempt to use legal force (for example, eminent domain laws or other pressures) to compel owners to comply. An effective strategy anticipates this. Owners might organize legal challenges or public campaigns highlighting their property rights. In some cases, courts have upheld the rights of owners against powerful interests when the owners stood firm. Being aware of one’s legal protections and having supportive lawyers or organizations can make a big difference.

Publicize the Refusal and Its Reasons: As with most protest tactics, winning the narrative is important. Owners who refuse to let or sell in protest should communicate why they are doing so. Are they defending their community’s land from exploitation? Refusing to fund a war or oppression with their property? Letting the public know the story behind the refusal can generate widespread support. Media coverage can put additional pressure on the targeted party to change course rather than fight the boycott. (In one modern case, local landowners’ refusal to grant land for a pipeline became a rallying point that drew national attention to environmental justice.)

Combine with Other Nonviolent Methods: In practice, refusal to sell or rent is often one part of a larger campaign. It can be combined with protest marches, petitions, strikes, or international boycotts to amplify impact. For example, a refusal to sell land might coincide with protests on that land, making it both a physical and economic blockade. Gene Sharp noted that nonviolent methods can be “blended” for greater effect, and this tactic is no exception. Using multiple approaches can reinforce the message and effectiveness of the property boycott.

By following these insights, activists and communities can maximize the effectiveness of this tactic. History shows that when executed well, refusing to let or sell property can force authorities or companies to negotiate, alter policies, or even abandon unjust plans – all without picking up a weapon.

Historical Examples of Refusing to Let or Sell Property

Throughout history, there have been many instances where individuals and groups harnessed this method to stand up against powerful adversaries. Below are several significant examples that highlight when, where, and how “refusal to let or sell property” has been used – and what impact it had:

Kenya (British Colony), 1938 – The Kamba Livestock Protest

In 1938, the Kamba people of Kenya launched a bold nonviolent protest against British colonial authorities who were attempting to force them into “compulsory selling” of their cattle at unfairly low prices. Cattle were central to the Kamba’s livelihood, and the colonial government’s destocking program (justified as soil conservation) threatened to impoverish them.

In response, Kamba community leaders and villagers refused to sell their cattle and sent petitions and telegrams to the authorities voicing their opposition. They even organized a mass march to Nairobi to demand an end to the policy. This act of economic defiance – effectively withholding their property (livestock) – put the colonial government in a tough spot.

The protest grew large and drew public attention; it was significant enough that a question about the issue was raised in the British Parliament in London. The Kamba’s refusal to comply, coupled with public demonstrations, embarrassed the colonial administration and garnered sympathy back in Britain.

In the end, the colonial destocking scheme was halted and revised. Although some protest leaders were arrested during the campaign, the Kamba’s stand is remembered as a successful early example of rural Africans using nonviolent noncooperation to defend their economic rights. It proved that even under colonial rule, a united community could resist by simply not relinquishing what was theirs.

Palestine (British Mandate), 1936–1939 – Boycotting Land Sales in the Arab Revolt

During the Arab national revolt in Palestine against British rule and Zionist immigration, one of the core tactics was refusing to sell land to Jewish colonization agencies. The Arab Higher Committee (the leadership of the Palestinian Arabs) called for a general strike and demanded a total ban on land sales to Jews as part of their resistance platform.

At the time, Zionist organizations were purchasing large tracts of land for Jewish settlers, which Palestinians viewed as a threat to their existence in their homeland. In line with the revolt’s demands, many Arab landowners and communities vowed not to let or sell any more of their property to these organizations. This was a classic use of economic noncooperation: by withholding land (the critical resource in question), Palestinian Arabs aimed to stifle the expansion of Jewish settlements and pressure the British authorities to curb land transfers.

The impact was significant in several ways. Firstly, it slowed the pace of land acquisition – sellers became scarce, and those who defied the boycott were often socially ostracized. Secondly, it pushed the British government to take notice of the issue: in 1939, as the revolt wound down, the British issued the “White Paper of 1939,” which among other provisions restricted Jewish land purchases in Palestine (essentially conceding to the demand for limits on land sales).

While the Arab Revolt did involve violence in other phases, the specific tactic of refusing land sales was a nonviolent economic weapon. It demonstrated how an oppressed population could use property refusal as leverage in a nationalist struggle – attempting to deny colonizers the land under their feet. Though the broader conflict continued, this method became a lasting element of Palestinian resistance (and to this day, the principle of “not selling land to the opponent” remains symbolically powerful in many struggles against occupation or colonization).

United States, 2010–2015 – Nebraska Farmers Stall the Keystone XL Pipeline

In the early 2010s, a group of family farmers and ranchers in Nebraska showed how refusing to sell property can thwart a massive corporate project. The TransCanada corporation was seeking to build the Keystone XL Pipeline, an oil pipeline crossing the U.S.–Canada border and running through Nebraska. Many local landowners were strongly opposed to this pipeline due to environmental and land rights concerns.

Rather than agree to sell or lease their land for the pipeline, a number of Nebraska landowners flatly refused – even when the company offered money. This collective refusal became a key obstacle for the project. TransCanada attempted to use eminent domain (legal seizure of land) to force the sales, but the owners fought back in court.

In a landmark 2014 ruling, a Nebraska judge sided with the landowners, declaring it unconstitutional for a foreign private company to seize land via eminent domain. This legal victory, made possible because the owners never consented to sell, caused major delays. For years, the pipeline could not be built along the planned route.

The farmers also took their story public, framing it as David-vs-Goliath: humble land stewards protecting their farms and water from a giant oil project. Their persistence paid off. The delays they created helped give time for a broader environmental campaign to grow. Eventually, after prolonged suspension and political battles, the Keystone XL project was cancelled in 2021.

This example highlights the impact: a determined group of property owners, by denying a corporation the land it needed, managed to protect their community and environment. Their refusal to let or sell property was the linchpin of a successful resistance that stopped a multi-billion-dollar project.

United States, 2020–2021 – Memphis Community Blocks the Byhalia Pipeline

A predominantly Black neighborhood in south-west Memphis, Tennessee, recently provided a powerful modern example of this tactic in action. When two oil companies proposed the Byhalia Connection Pipeline through their community (an area called Boxtown, rich in Black history), many residents and local landowners were outraged by the threat to their drinking water and the pattern of environmental racism.

Local Black landowners refused to sign over easements or sell their property for the pipeline route. This refusal set the stage for a fierce battle. The pipeline developers attempted to sue landowners to force access, but the community organized. Activists and property owners formed a coalition, staging protests and raising awareness that the pipeline targeted a vulnerable community.

With support from environmental groups and even the city government, they fought the project on legal and public fronts. The companies encountered not only legal hurdles but also a public relations nightmare. In July 2021, after months of sustained opposition, the developers canceled the Byhalia pipeline project altogether.

The community’s refusal to allow their land to be taken – literally not letting the pipeline through their backyards – was central to this victory. This case is particularly significant because it shows how refusal to sell property can intersect with struggles for racial and environmental justice. It wasn’t just about one owner, but an entire community drawing a line. Their stance forced the nation to pay attention, and ultimately saved their neighborhood from an unwanted, risky development. As one Memphis activist said, “We chose not to give up what our parents and grandparents worked for, and that made all the difference.”

Impact and Legacy

Each of the above examples, despite differing contexts, demonstrates the impact of “refusal to let or sell property” as a protest method. In many cases, the immediate effect was to delay or derail the opponent’s plans, buying time and leverage for the movement. Sometimes it directly forced the change (as in Memphis, where the project was abandoned).

Even when met with repression (as in colonial Kenya or Palestine), the tactic helped unify the oppressed group and draw attention to their cause on the world stage. By refusing to relinquish property or resources, protesters assert control over one of the few things they can control – their own assets – and remove their consent from the system.