8 ms·

I am curious why the government would need to punish people because they are living as they wish, in land they bought and own. I mean, it is 100% fair to say a

• PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  > I am curious why the government would need to punish people because they are living as they wish, in land they bought and own. Think of this as more like an area permanently deeded for a certain kind of activity, with the existing belief (encoded into law) being that permanent living there is in conflict with that activity. I think it's fine to argue that this belief is wrong, and that living permanently in the structure that is permitted to be on the allotment is just fine. I might even agree with you. But in general, it also seems fine to me that communities can mark out certain places as being for only a specific set of activities, and exclude others from taking place there.
  • dionidium 5y ago
    But in general, it also seems fine to me that communities can mark out certain places as being for only a specific set of activities, and exclude others from taking place there. It does seem fine, at first, but the end result is the housing crisis, because people, having been given this power, will work very hard to ensure that expensive single-family homes with multiple parking spots and generous setbacks are the only living arrangement that's legal. (Let's not forget that people also marked out racial boundaries, when they were allowed to do that, too. When you let homeowners set housing-use policy, you get...bad results.)
    • nicoburns 5y ago
      It doesn't need to directly be homeowners. In the UK it would generally be a planning committee which is a branch of local government. And I believe it consists of a mix of elected officials and professional experts. I definitely think planning is an area that could do with a lot of reform but done right it can be an extremely powerful for good.
      • PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        I don't think that the issue is who makes the decisions (and it's rarely directly homeowners anywhere in the USA). The question is what interests are represented or accounted for by the decision making process. In well-off middle class neighborhoods of most US cities and suburbs, zoning processes cater almost exclusively to the interests of those who already live there, rather than those who don't but might want to. I don't think the UK process is significantly different in that respect.
    • loco5niner 5y ago
      Well, that is what they paid for. They chose a place to live based on the neighborhood, and they want it to stay that way. There are plenty of places people for people to live and build.
      • ryukafalz 5y ago
        There are, in fact, not plenty of places for people to live and build where there are actually jobs available. And in the places where there are jobs available, homeowners have systematically blocked building enough new housing. Hence the housing shortage we find ourselves in now: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/09/01/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-immediate-steps-to-increase-affordable-housing-supply/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases... There's land out on the periphery that hasn't yet been used for housing, but look: we urgently need to get our emissions under control because the course we're on will be catastrophic for the planet. Urban sprawl is massively inefficient. Buying a house cannot entitle you to the neighborhood around you never changing if we are to have any hope of dealing with this mess. Change is part of life.
        • deleted 5y ago
          [deleted]
      • dionidium 5y ago
        Sure, I think YIMBYs are mistaken when they wax hyperbolic about evil NIMBYs and their nefarious motives. It's actually pretty simple. People don't want their neighborhoods to change. It's an earnest objection. But I don't care what they want. It's not up to them. It's illegitimate to tell a property owner that they can't build a duplex on their own property. It's an illegal taking. It's not up to a vote. My neighbor's opinion is irrelevant. > There are plenty of places people for people to live and build. Indeed, there are plenty of places to live and build and the burden is on those who don't want anyone to build near them to move to some place new if they don't like what their neighbors are doing. You have the burden exactly backwards. If you don't like what people are choosing to do on their own private property, then you can move. You shouldn't be allowed to tell everyone else to stop building.
    • majormajor 5y ago
      Very few of the US cities worst hit by the housing crisis are exclusively single-family. They're actually some of the densest places in the US. Seems like the blame for the housing crisis lies a lot more with landlords who'd rather kick out a tenant paying X for a new tenant able to pay out X*y - if you have more people moving in than moving out, and existing landlords can simply choose to serve the new, wealthier ones, you're going to have a problem. If you couldn't take advantage of the migration simply by choosing to rent to the higher-income and kick out your existing tenants, maybe the politically-connected multiple-property-owners would figure out a way to get more construction going. We used to have both rent control and more densification than we have today.
      • tikhonj 5y ago
        The US cities hit by the housing crisis—with the notable exception of New York—are disproportionately dominated by single-family homes, enforced through explicit zoning laws. Being "some of the densest places in the US" does not mean much when the entire country outside NYC is so sparsely populated! SF is the second-densest "large" city in the US. I haven't found specific numbers, but looking at zoning maps at least 50% of the residential space is zoned for single-family homes only, with the majority of the remainder explicitly zoned for low-density residences. A big chunk of the city is basically a suburb! The rest of the Bay Area, of course, is more like 90% single-family housing. This year Berkeley passed a resolution removing single-family zoning throughout the entire city so perhaps the tides are shifting, but even if zoning laws and politics change, it'll take decades for this to meaningfully affect the housing supply.
      • dionidium 5y ago
        Two objections, one factual and one more philosophical. First, it's actually not true that most major U.S. cities are bereft of single-family homes. It's the dominant form of zoning. See here: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/18/upshot/cities-across-america-question-single-family-zoning.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/18/upshot/cities... But, second, any objection that places the blame on "greedy landlords" is a total nonstarter. Everybody is responding to their incentives. Landlords aren't greedier than anybody else. If widget makers could set higher prices, they would. They don't because they can't, not because they're "less greedy."
    • e_proxus 5y ago
      I can assure you that the allotment areas in Sweden are in no significant way contributing to the housing crisis. That has many other reasons, of which these relatively small areas is definitely not a major one (if one at all). Sure, some would be prime real estate but I’d rather have a few of these co-ops mixed into the cities than just private housing projects everywhere.
    • PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      Yes, absolutely. I very much do not agree with the way that zoning has been used in the US (at least) for racist and classist purposes, typically in the way you describe above. That said, I think that a concept similar to zoning is probably a good one to have on hand, particularly for uses like greenspace of various sorts. It's use does need to carefully controlled/moderated.
  • irae 5y ago
    The issue I take with laws are that laws are usually slower to change, and even changing areas from one designated type to another. As you can see, the land and real state market changes. Things used to be accessible, today many people flee to barely legal situations just because it is too expensive otherwise. What used to be desirable in one area might change over time, and punishing the first ones to try seem too harsh to me.
• tokai 5y ago
  In dk they haven't bought and own the land. They are part of an association that is renting the land.
• dionidium 5y ago
  I am curious why the government would need to punish people because they are living as they wish, in land they bought and own. Try to build a duplex in your neighborhood and you'll really find out how far people will go to punish you for living as you wish on land you bought and own.
• SamBam 5y ago
  At allotment is a parcel of land rented or loaned to people by the city for the purposes of gardening. These exist in the States as well (though not nearly at the level and cultural significance as in the UK) as "community gardens," and exist in many other countries as well. I don't think any of the cities that provide these parcels for gardening would allow people to simply build a house and live there instead.
• loco5niner 5y ago
  If you are using a compost toilet right next to your neighbor, you are being a bad neighbor. Have you ever smelled a compost toilet? (It stinks up an entire area) I certainly don't want to be smelling your composting poo while I'm sitting on my back porch eating dinner (or worse, while sitting in my dining room eating dinner with the windows open). If you want to do that, move out to the country(rural areas) where you have space. Your freedoms end where they infringe on others freedoms. Because some people don't understand that (or don't care), governments step in and say "You can't do that".
  • endisneigh 5y ago
    I have - if it's done properly, with the right separation of pee/poop and ventilation and the drying out of solid matter, it hardly smells. Faintly of manure, basically.
    • loco5niner 5y ago
      I believe it. I'd rather not roll the dice on getting a neighbor that will do it right though.
      • endisneigh 5y ago
        presumably the same rules that you trust for neighbors to work on their own plumbing/landscaping and preventing runoff into your yard, for example, would apply here.
        • kbenson 5y ago
          I think the issue is that with slightly bigger lots and/or city services meant to alleviate these problems (sewage lines), much of what might be problems is smoothed over. Often there are laws about setbacks from property edges for dwellings, which may or may not apply to a structure which is not meant to be a dwelling. By skirting the rules or using a loophole, people may in some instances find why those rules were put in place in urban areas (i.e. where people live closely together).
• johnchristopher 5y ago
  > I am curious why the government would need to punish people because they are living as they wish, in land they bought and own. Easy. Governments need to be sure that there is enough soils and fields and pasture around to produce food or at some point we run into problems. Also, governments like its citizens happy (bear with me) so for instance they prevent open air industrial poultry breeding next to houses, make maps with sections dedicated to farming/pastures/residential occupations, etc. You also cannot build anything you want on the land you bought and own: a 600 meters tall jenga building next to a highway or a your own giant windmill for example. Living in a tribe grants benefits but it also cut on some of our liberties.
• gambiting 5y ago
  >>I am curious why the government would need to punish people because they are living as they wish, in land they bought and own. You don't own the land of an allotment. You rent it from the local council, usually for many years, but you don't own it. Sometimes there's an option to "buy" it so there is no rent but you still don't own the actual land, no title is ever assigned to it or to you. You just get permanent right to use it.
  • irae 5y ago
    You really can only "own" things you have full control. So, ok, if it is rented, I do se why it would have tighter rules. I don't have an issue with that. Still strange to "rent permanently" and still need to follow tight rules that harm no one.
• anovikov 5y ago
  Not really "bought and own"... These places are not for permanent habitation - it's like say, building a house on an agricultural land - simply not permitted. Except here, temporary housing is permitted, with limitations. Reason is that they are located in areas where actual residential construction is likely in foreseeable future. So on one hand, it would be a waste to keep the land completely unused, but on the other, building anything permanent there would be a waste too because it will need to be razed quite soon.
  • irae 5y ago
    Ok. Feels weird to me to renovate a place they don't own at all, so I expected the person to own it. It is fair to follow more rules if you rent someone elses or city land. On the other hand, if you still keep the tiny home low cost, easy for decommissioning and/or demolishing, why would government go as far as punish someone who is doing no harm whatsoever? I take no offense or issue with city planing and even community planing. What I do believe is going too far, is to punish preemptively even when no actual harm was done. The rule say "no living" but the meaning is "be temporary and easy to dispose". So living there while respecting the community goal should not be punishable, instead, just recognize the goals were kept in spirit.
• didntknowya 5y ago
  land is zoned for particular uses for a reason (lack of utilities, traffic management, etc.) and it's the government's job to enforce these expectations for the neighbors and community. imagine buying a rural land to get away from the city bustle and a developer builds high density apartment next to your place. or buying an apartment in the city only for someone to demolish blocks around you and turn it into farmland so you are not as conveniently close to shops and facilities.
  • irae 5y ago
    If the actual goal is to keep it "rural" or "greener" etc, living small, as long as they don't demand anything extra, as long as the outside is kept as it was meant to be, why go as far as punish the person? Sometimes rules are written too narrow and need adjustment. Following it blindly is not necessarily serving society optimally. If the actual goal is to have places people can garden, and have a large span of green land in that region, the single student living there is still following the objetive in spirit. In my opinion punishing would be going to far and serving no or little purpose for the community.