>>100
>Everyone has the right to live how they see fit as long as they don't hurt anyone else. The minute they hurt someone else they violate their rights.
I'll give a more suitable example. Person A and person B both have absolute claim a river. Person A wants to build a watermill over the river to work his grains. Person B on the other hand wants to river to stay virgin so he can admire its natural beauty. Now both have claim over the whole of the river due to public ownership, and there you have it. If person A build that watermill, he violates person B's right to the river. If person B succeeds in stopping A from building the mill, he violates A's right.
Common space (I assume you mean a common between roommates) belongs to the landlord. That landlord is the one who owns it and makes the rule on how it should be used by the tenants.
As for things working out over time, that's the wrong way to put it. It's possible for the dust to settle when the interest coincides or when the power struggle comes to a stalemate or when one side just stops caring, but the root of the problem is still there, that more than two individuals have an absolute claim to the same property and that only might can determine the victor if their interest differs.
Things are fundamentally the same even if the ownership is claimed by more than two people, and is the same if the outcome is decided by a vote. A vote in such a situation where everyone has the claim to the WHOLE property would mean the majority can vote away the right of a minority, a victory by might.
Point been, public ownership is flawed conceptually at the root. It's contradictory for a group of people to have the same absolute claim on the same property. Such a political policy is to openly invite inevitable conflict.