3 ms·
I'm thinking the politicians from anyplace that would be a problem are strongly disincentivized from making any such law. If a guy owns a big enough tract, then
by bilbo0s 7y ago
I'm thinking the politicians from anyplace that would be a problem are strongly disincentivized from making any such law. If a guy owns a big enough tract, then that's potential for a huge roads project to go around that tract. Roads projects mean money and jobs, lots of the former and lots, and lots of the latter. Jobs tends to mean votes. Especially in rural areas.
If anyone can just go through the land anyway, all of a sudden there is no need for any projects. At least no big one.
But maybe I'm just being cynical.
- arethuza 7y agoWell, in Scotland you only have the right to walk or cycle across other people's property - and with a number of restrictions (no damaging crops, no access to immediate vicinity or houses etc.).
- bilbo0s 7y agoAh, I see. Yeah, that makes more sense. So they would still need a road. Also, you can't go up to someones house and walk around. Etc.
- maxxxxx 7y agoWhen I was in Scotland two years this was a breath of fresh air and “freedom”. In the US there are lots of areas where it’s really hard to hike because people close off their land completely. Or they mark the land as private and now you have to worry about getting shot or somethings.
- maxxxxx 7y agoI think you are overthinking this way too much. A right to roam would have no impact on road building or other public projects.