Dear Phil;
The debate isn't about allowing an easement to property it's about private property and its usage in a public sense without easement conventions.
A case in point which references common law. I have a friend who owns a home in the outer Richmnond District. When these homes were originally built the garages were placed on the back side of the property with an access alley. Because his home is at the street side his deed to the property includes a non-revocable easement allowing the other inside the block property owners the right to use the access alley which he can not by deed to the property revoke or block access in any manner.
The mall owners while allowing the public access to the mall property are allowing access to the stores who are sub-letting the property from the owners because the owner took the risk of building the mall for the stores who would come and attract customers who would enable the stores to pay the rent and the costs of maintaining the property and also paying property taxes and the stores collecting sales taxes for the benefit of the state and its minions.
The private property of the mall is there for SHOPPERS not leafletting and no easement is needed for SHOPPERS.
Ron Getty
SF LIbertarian