3 ms·
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. E
by 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 agoOk. 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.