4 ms·

Firstly, you can already get a plot of land you can garden at market rate - simply buy a house with a garden. Secondly, you should be extremely skeptical about

Firstly, you can already get a plot of land you can garden at market rate - simply buy a house with a garden. Secondly, you should be extremely skeptical about the 40 year claim. After all, people move, and the popularity of allotments waxes and wanes. Thirdly, the people who allocate allotments are mostly looking for someone who is going to show up and take care of their plot so it doesn't get overgrown. Expecting a lot of manual labour and then pricing out anyone with a background in manual labour might not be the smartest move.

josephcsible 4y ago
> the people who allocate allotments are mostly looking for someone who is going to show up and take care of their plot so it doesn't get overgrown. Couldn't the owners address that by including a clause like "if you let your plot get overgrown, you have to pay a penalty (maybe 3x what it costs to pay someone to come take care of it), and if you do it twice, we're not renewing your lease"?
- londons_explore 4y ago
  Or... "You pay to start having the plot... Whoever is willing to pay most gets it, like an auction. And at a random time each year we'll come inspect the plot, and the worst-kept 20% will immediately lose the plot and if you want it again you have to re-buy it.". So you're buying a kinda-5-year-lease. But the exact length of your lease depends how well you look after it.
  - jamiek88 4y ago
    Man, can’t the working class have anything without the fashionable classes pricing them out? We live in a fucking society. Not everything needs to be minmax rent seeking.
    - josephcsible 4y ago
      I don't see any rent-seeking in that idea. Note that economic rent in the sense of rent-seeking is not the same as rent paid to lease something.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    I basically like this idea too, although rather than the worst-kept 20%, I'd define a standard at the beginning of the year and then do any that don't meet that standard at inspection time, no matter what percentage it ends up being.
    - londons_explore 4y ago
      I initially considered that... But then you can just pay someone to meet the standard, and keep the allotment forever. It effectively becomes land you own permanently. And the price would probably go from 'a few hundred bucks for something that will entertain me for a year' to 'an investment that will rise in value and I can give my children, so $400k'. Knowing that a fixed percentage of owners will be stripped of their holding each year makes it a very unattractive investment, while not preventing most of the other uses of an allotment.
    - 7952 4y ago
      Very strict standards would become political very quickly and lead to conflict. There is a huge difference of opinion about what constitutes tidy and weed free. My plot has stinging nettles on it. They are a useful habit that attracts beneficial insects. I let the grass grow longer as a habitat for frogs. I don't use chemicals on bind weed just pull it out. My shed leans over a little and needs painting. It looks a bit of a mess sometimes but is actually fairly well cared for. But some people won't see it like that. The wonderful thing about an allotment is that it is a space to play a bit without too many rules. And a more relaxed approach to care is more sustainable in terms of effort.
  - robocat 4y ago
    >> and the worst-kept 20% will immediately lose the plot Which is stack-ranking - fire the lowest x% of performers every year. Yeah nahhh, no problems with that idea, nope.
    - londons_explore 4y ago
      Except you have a judging team do it, based on published criteria, rather than all the participants ranking eachother. A bit like a school exam (where students are usually ranked - curve fitted - to eliminate variable difficulty of the questions that year)
      - namibj 4y ago
        School stack taking is even worse.
- Spooky23 4y ago
  Or, you make the process cumbersome enough that the individuals who complete it have already demonstrated commitment.
- erikpukinskis 4y ago
  I assume there are rules where if you don’t show up for a couple years in a row, you forfeit your plot?

josephcsible 4y ago

> the people who allocate allotments are mostly looking for someone who is going to show up and take care of their plot so it doesn't get overgrown. Couldn't the owners address that by including a clause like "if you let your plot get overgrown, you have to pay a penalty (maybe 3x what it costs to pay someone to come take care of it), and if you do it twice, we're not renewing your lease"?

londons_explore 4y ago
Or... "You pay to start having the plot... Whoever is willing to pay most gets it, like an auction. And at a random time each year we'll come inspect the plot, and the worst-kept 20% will immediately lose the plot and if you want it again you have to re-buy it.". So you're buying a kinda-5-year-lease. But the exact length of your lease depends how well you look after it.
- jamiek88 4y ago
  Man, can’t the working class have anything without the fashionable classes pricing them out? We live in a fucking society. Not everything needs to be minmax rent seeking.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    I don't see any rent-seeking in that idea. Note that economic rent in the sense of rent-seeking is not the same as rent paid to lease something.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  I basically like this idea too, although rather than the worst-kept 20%, I'd define a standard at the beginning of the year and then do any that don't meet that standard at inspection time, no matter what percentage it ends up being.
  - londons_explore 4y ago
    I initially considered that... But then you can just pay someone to meet the standard, and keep the allotment forever. It effectively becomes land you own permanently. And the price would probably go from 'a few hundred bucks for something that will entertain me for a year' to 'an investment that will rise in value and I can give my children, so $400k'. Knowing that a fixed percentage of owners will be stripped of their holding each year makes it a very unattractive investment, while not preventing most of the other uses of an allotment.
  - 7952 4y ago
    Very strict standards would become political very quickly and lead to conflict. There is a huge difference of opinion about what constitutes tidy and weed free. My plot has stinging nettles on it. They are a useful habit that attracts beneficial insects. I let the grass grow longer as a habitat for frogs. I don't use chemicals on bind weed just pull it out. My shed leans over a little and needs painting. It looks a bit of a mess sometimes but is actually fairly well cared for. But some people won't see it like that. The wonderful thing about an allotment is that it is a space to play a bit without too many rules. And a more relaxed approach to care is more sustainable in terms of effort.
- robocat 4y ago
  >> and the worst-kept 20% will immediately lose the plot Which is stack-ranking - fire the lowest x% of performers every year. Yeah nahhh, no problems with that idea, nope.
  - londons_explore 4y ago
    Except you have a judging team do it, based on published criteria, rather than all the participants ranking eachother. A bit like a school exam (where students are usually ranked - curve fitted - to eliminate variable difficulty of the questions that year)
    - namibj 4y ago
      School stack taking is even worse.
Spooky23 4y ago
Or, you make the process cumbersome enough that the individuals who complete it have already demonstrated commitment.
erikpukinskis 4y ago
I assume there are rules where if you don’t show up for a couple years in a row, you forfeit your plot?