4 ms·

This is obscuring the difference between a community choosing to have reduced service and, since 2013, the postal service mandating that service be reduced. No

by rsj_hn 6y ago

This is obscuring the difference between a community choosing to have reduced service and, since 2013, the postal service mandating that service be reduced. No, it has not always been the case that the USPS mandated a reduced level of service to new housing developments. That is a big deal. They are effectively saying that they are not going to support door to door delivery to any housing community in America, regardless of what that housing community wants.

jermaustin1 6y ago
But the end result is the same, the resident doesn't have the choice (except in a few circumstances) to get mail delivery to their door. Their choice is the same today as it was 30 years ago, move into a neighborhood and get mail at a central mailbox, or don't move to a neighborhood. Living in NYC, my mail wasn't delivered to my door. Living in Houston, TX, my mail wasn't delivered to my door. Living in Webster, TX, my mail wasn't delivered to my door. Living in Pasadena, TX my mail wasn't delivered to my door. My cabin in a small town in Colorado, mail is delivered to a letter box attached to my door (well used to, I have told the USPS to refuse all mail). My house in a small town in upstate NY, mail is delivered to the letter flap in my door. My friend who lives in a neighborhood in NJ built over 30 years ago, has to drive to get his mail because the community board chose no mail boxes. The end result is the exact same, the USPS just decided to codify exactly what was already happening, so that they could standardize how they were supposed to use those mail rooms. You are overly simplifying the cause and effect, mailbox down the road != usps delivering mail to everyone, thus I'm living in some fairy tail land that no longer exists.
- rsj_hn 6y ago
  Not it is not the same. Saying "the USPS will never again deliver mail to the door of any new development in the US" is not at all the same thing as saying "some developments can opt out of mail delivery to their door". You honestly do not see the difference between these two statements?

by rsj_hn 6y ago

jermaustin1 6y ago

But the end result is the same, the resident doesn't have the choice (except in a few circumstances) to get mail delivery to their door. Their choice is the same today as it was 30 years ago, move into a neighborhood and get mail at a central mailbox, or don't move to a neighborhood. Living in NYC, my mail wasn't delivered to my door. Living in Houston, TX, my mail wasn't delivered to my door. Living in Webster, TX, my mail wasn't delivered to my door. Living in Pasadena, TX my mail wasn't delivered to my door. My cabin in a small town in Colorado, mail is delivered to a letter box attached to my door (well used to, I have told the USPS to refuse all mail). My house in a small town in upstate NY, mail is delivered to the letter flap in my door. My friend who lives in a neighborhood in NJ built over 30 years ago, has to drive to get his mail because the community board chose no mail boxes. The end result is the exact same, the USPS just decided to codify exactly what was already happening, so that they could standardize how they were supposed to use those mail rooms. You are overly simplifying the cause and effect, mailbox down the road != usps delivering mail to everyone, thus I'm living in some fairy tail land that no longer exists.

rsj_hn 6y ago
Not it is not the same. Saying "the USPS will never again deliver mail to the door of any new development in the US" is not at all the same thing as saying "some developments can opt out of mail delivery to their door". You honestly do not see the difference between these two statements?