8 ms·

I wouldn’t want that in the US. We have more than enough national public land where people are free to roam. The last thing I want is some random camping in my

I wouldn’t want that in the US. We have more than enough national public land where people are free to roam. The last thing I want is some random camping in my backyard. We are a very individualistic people, I don’t want people in my little nation state.

teddyh 4y ago
> The last thing I want is some random camping in my backyard. FUD. Freedom to Roam laws only allow camping a fair distance away from inhabited buildings.
- torstenvl 4y ago
  - teddyh 4y ago
    No, what’s “ugly behavior” is posting FUD. > The vast majority of people don't have inhabited buildings in their back yards. If a building is uninhabited, the yard attached to it is hardly “my backyard”, as ‘bergenty’ wrote.
    - torstenvl 4y ago
      - teddyh 4y ago
        Sorry, but characterizing Freedom to Roam as allowing people “camping in my backyard” is indeed FUD. Words like “my backyard” have a reasonable definition, and you can’t just redefine them at will (i.e. redefine “my backyard” to mean “my whole property”) to make the statement technically true.
        torstenvl 4y ago
        The dictionary definition is "the area close to where one lives, regarded with proprietorial concern"
        tarboreus 4y ago
        Er, no. A yard is a single open space. Your backyard is the single open space behind (i.e., not in front of) your house.
        MacsHeadroom 4y ago
        In america "backyard" often refers to an area extending beyond ones own neighbourhood. It's where the acronym "NIMBY" (Not In My Backyard) comes from. The OP could indeed be objecting to unknown people camping anywhere near their property, even off of it.
        cercatrova 4y ago
        As an American, yes backyard can mean the general area where one stays, but in the specific comment above, I also took it to mean literally in someone's backyard.
- timnetworks 4y ago
  - teddyh 4y ago
    Freedom to Roam laws only allow passing through, not littering. Do you foresee people who would litter illegally, but would not trespass illegally?
    - sokoloff 4y ago
      I can foresee that encouraging the roaming brings along some amount of littering among the inconsiderate.
      - teddyh 4y ago
        Even though this is not a significant problem in countries which has such laws?
      - belorn 4y ago
        I have seen a fairly common solution being deployed in those situations. People who tend to be that lazy that they litter will also be too lazy to walk large distances with their stuff. Thus the solution that land owners deploy is to increase the walking distance between potential parking location and the desired nature destination. Obviously this lower the accessibility for disabled people so its not a perfect solution, but if government want to make it accessible then they can also pay for solving the littering problem.
  - kjkjadksj 4y ago
    Well those types of campers are already in the US without freedom to roam so its not like the situation would change at all.
- exit 4y ago
  how is "a fair distance" specified?
  - nkrisc 4y ago
    They may not be citing specific law, but instead generally describing the spirit of a broad set of such laws.
    - dixie_land 4y ago
      then essentially it's unenforceable, so no I don't want that in the states. fair to me means "not one inch across my property line"
      - exit 4y ago
        i think "not one inch across my property line" makes sense, but there is still a problem to resolve regarding access to public land. in particular the article describes a problem with public land being inaccessible except through "corner crossing".
        behringer 4y ago
        The solution is simple. Land owners should just be required to grant access to public land they border. If you don't like that, don't buy property that borders public land.
        randallsquared 4y ago
        Virtually every property borders public land of some kind (a public road right of way, typically). It might be interesting to minimally specify what it means to allow access in a way that doesn't allow virtually any path across one's land. You can't just require allowance from any other border directly to the nearest border of public land, for this reason (could be through the owner's house or garden). One way might be to require the specification of public traversal areas as part of the title. Or 100m around the edges of every property is traversable.
- bergenty 4y ago
  If it’s 70m that’s still very close to my house. Americans have a way of pushing the boundaries of every law, we’re a litigious country we follow the letter of the law not the spirit. This will probably result in a chain of homeless people that stay in your backyard for three days and then move over to the next backyard.
  - teddyh 4y ago
    > If it’s 70m that’s still very close “150 metres in Norway and in all countries far enough that you do not inconvenience anyone and particularly not those in the nearest house.” — https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Right_to_access_in_the_Nordic_countries#Camp_and_picnick https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Right_to_access_in_the_Nordic... > This will probably result in a chain of homeless people Countries with Freedom to Roam laws have homeless people, too. What you describe has not happened. > stay in your backyard for three days Again, FUD about “your backyard”. Do you have a 250,000 sq. ft (2.24 hectares, 5.5 acres) back yard? Also, Freedom to Roam laws usually restrict camping to at most two nights, sometimes one night only.
    - bergenty 4y ago
      Yes, I have a 24 acre backyard
      - teddyh 4y ago
        Your usage of the word “backyard” differs from everybody else’s.
        bergenty 4y ago
        It definitely doesn’t, not according to the dictionary anyway. As an aside, I think you may be underestimating how large American homes and properties can be, it’s not Europe scale. 5 acres really isn’t all that large.
        4y ago
WarOnPrivacy 4y ago
> The last thing I want is some random camping in my backyard. Story: A regional gov agency bought a large tract of land behind my home for conservation. A fireline was cut all around the edge of the tract and lined with a 4' wire fence that ran adjacent to our properties. Homeowners were unitedly happy the land wouldn't be developed but some were upset it was now available for public daytime use. Two disgruntled neighbors in particular stand out. One was a new mom who was alone all day and was unsettled with folks hiking past her backyard. The other was a generally cantankerous old guy who felt his right of privacy ought to extend far into land that wasn't his. Whenever my kids and I hiked the fireline, we made a point of venturing away from the alone-mom's property but didn't extend the same courtesy to the old guy. Though we had a right to walk any part of the tract we wanted, we found respecting alone-mom's concerns was worth the effort. My moral here is that demanding every last nanometer of rights - while rejecting all notions of consideration - is usually too absolutist to be productive. When conflicting desires are in play, I feel consideration+efficiency leads to more workable agreements.
- runsWphotons 4y ago
  why were her concerns more important than his? old man was probably alone all day as well and unsettled
  - factsarelolz 4y ago
    - torstenvl 4y ago
      I have seen a lot of people with PTSD and I'm thankful for your consciousness of it and care about veterans. I wonder if there might be a way of going about discussing it that would be more effective in winning people over, though.
  - WarOnPrivacy 4y ago
    > why were her concerns more important than his? old man was probably alone all day as well and unsettled Young mom is young and still sorting out how to tell FUD from actual risk. Also, her peer group is at actual risk from men. I can give her room to sort out what's what; meanwhile, the risk from men diminishes with age. The old man was married and his adult kids where there a lot. I was on the HOA board and talked to him a number of times. He wasn't struggling with any concern for his safety; he resented that his visible area could be (<5x/yr as it was remote) briefly intruded by someone walking by on the other side of the fence.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mrmanner 4y ago
Sweden, one of the usual examples when freedom to roam is discussed, has laws agains home invasion including yards, gardens, etc. since at least 800 years. This has nothing to do with property rights, any home regardless of ownership structure is protected. So camping in someone's backyard could most definitely be illegal even if you were to introduce freedom to roam :)

teddyh 4y ago

> The last thing I want is some random camping in my backyard. FUD. Freedom to Roam laws only allow camping a fair distance away from inhabited buildings.

torstenvl 4y ago
- teddyh 4y ago
  No, what’s “ugly behavior” is posting FUD. > The vast majority of people don't have inhabited buildings in their back yards. If a building is uninhabited, the yard attached to it is hardly “my backyard”, as ‘bergenty’ wrote.
  - torstenvl 4y ago
    - teddyh 4y ago
      Sorry, but characterizing Freedom to Roam as allowing people “camping in my backyard” is indeed FUD. Words like “my backyard” have a reasonable definition, and you can’t just redefine them at will (i.e. redefine “my backyard” to mean “my whole property”) to make the statement technically true.
      - torstenvl 4y ago
        The dictionary definition is "the area close to where one lives, regarded with proprietorial concern"
        tarboreus 4y ago
        Er, no. A yard is a single open space. Your backyard is the single open space behind (i.e., not in front of) your house.
        MacsHeadroom 4y ago
        In america "backyard" often refers to an area extending beyond ones own neighbourhood. It's where the acronym "NIMBY" (Not In My Backyard) comes from. The OP could indeed be objecting to unknown people camping anywhere near their property, even off of it.
        cercatrova 4y ago
        As an American, yes backyard can mean the general area where one stays, but in the specific comment above, I also took it to mean literally in someone's backyard.
timnetworks 4y ago
- teddyh 4y ago
  Freedom to Roam laws only allow passing through, not littering. Do you foresee people who would litter illegally, but would not trespass illegally?
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    I can foresee that encouraging the roaming brings along some amount of littering among the inconsiderate.
    - teddyh 4y ago
      Even though this is not a significant problem in countries which has such laws?
    - belorn 4y ago
      I have seen a fairly common solution being deployed in those situations. People who tend to be that lazy that they litter will also be too lazy to walk large distances with their stuff. Thus the solution that land owners deploy is to increase the walking distance between potential parking location and the desired nature destination. Obviously this lower the accessibility for disabled people so its not a perfect solution, but if government want to make it accessible then they can also pay for solving the littering problem.
- kjkjadksj 4y ago
  Well those types of campers are already in the US without freedom to roam so its not like the situation would change at all.
exit 4y ago
how is "a fair distance" specified?
- nkrisc 4y ago
  They may not be citing specific law, but instead generally describing the spirit of a broad set of such laws.
  - dixie_land 4y ago
    then essentially it's unenforceable, so no I don't want that in the states. fair to me means "not one inch across my property line"
    - exit 4y ago
      i think "not one inch across my property line" makes sense, but there is still a problem to resolve regarding access to public land. in particular the article describes a problem with public land being inaccessible except through "corner crossing".
      - behringer 4y ago
        The solution is simple. Land owners should just be required to grant access to public land they border. If you don't like that, don't buy property that borders public land.
        randallsquared 4y ago
        Virtually every property borders public land of some kind (a public road right of way, typically). It might be interesting to minimally specify what it means to allow access in a way that doesn't allow virtually any path across one's land. You can't just require allowance from any other border directly to the nearest border of public land, for this reason (could be through the owner's house or garden). One way might be to require the specification of public traversal areas as part of the title. Or 100m around the edges of every property is traversable.
bergenty 4y ago
If it’s 70m that’s still very close to my house. Americans have a way of pushing the boundaries of every law, we’re a litigious country we follow the letter of the law not the spirit. This will probably result in a chain of homeless people that stay in your backyard for three days and then move over to the next backyard.
- teddyh 4y ago
  > If it’s 70m that’s still very close “150 metres in Norway and in all countries far enough that you do not inconvenience anyone and particularly not those in the nearest house.” — https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Right_to_access_in_the_Nordic_countries#Camp_and_picnick https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Right_to_access_in_the_Nordic... > This will probably result in a chain of homeless people Countries with Freedom to Roam laws have homeless people, too. What you describe has not happened. > stay in your backyard for three days Again, FUD about “your backyard”. Do you have a 250,000 sq. ft (2.24 hectares, 5.5 acres) back yard? Also, Freedom to Roam laws usually restrict camping to at most two nights, sometimes one night only.
  - bergenty 4y ago
    Yes, I have a 24 acre backyard
    - teddyh 4y ago
      Your usage of the word “backyard” differs from everybody else’s.
      - bergenty 4y ago
        It definitely doesn’t, not according to the dictionary anyway. As an aside, I think you may be underestimating how large American homes and properties can be, it’s not Europe scale. 5 acres really isn’t all that large.
        4y ago

WarOnPrivacy 4y ago

> The last thing I want is some random camping in my backyard. Story: A regional gov agency bought a large tract of land behind my home for conservation. A fireline was cut all around the edge of the tract and lined with a 4' wire fence that ran adjacent to our properties. Homeowners were unitedly happy the land wouldn't be developed but some were upset it was now available for public daytime use. Two disgruntled neighbors in particular stand out. One was a new mom who was alone all day and was unsettled with folks hiking past her backyard. The other was a generally cantankerous old guy who felt his right of privacy ought to extend far into land that wasn't his. Whenever my kids and I hiked the fireline, we made a point of venturing away from the alone-mom's property but didn't extend the same courtesy to the old guy. Though we had a right to walk any part of the tract we wanted, we found respecting alone-mom's concerns was worth the effort. My moral here is that demanding every last nanometer of rights - while rejecting all notions of consideration - is usually too absolutist to be productive. When conflicting desires are in play, I feel consideration+efficiency leads to more workable agreements.

runsWphotons 4y ago
why were her concerns more important than his? old man was probably alone all day as well and unsettled
- factsarelolz 4y ago
  - torstenvl 4y ago
    I have seen a lot of people with PTSD and I'm thankful for your consciousness of it and care about veterans. I wonder if there might be a way of going about discussing it that would be more effective in winning people over, though.
- WarOnPrivacy 4y ago
  > why were her concerns more important than his? old man was probably alone all day as well and unsettled Young mom is young and still sorting out how to tell FUD from actual risk. Also, her peer group is at actual risk from men. I can give her room to sort out what's what; meanwhile, the risk from men diminishes with age. The old man was married and his adult kids where there a lot. I was on the HOA board and talked to him a number of times. He wasn't struggling with any concern for his safety; he resented that his visible area could be (<5x/yr as it was remote) briefly intruded by someone walking by on the other side of the fence.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

mrmanner 4y ago

Sweden, one of the usual examples when freedom to roam is discussed, has laws agains home invasion including yards, gardens, etc. since at least 800 years. This has nothing to do with property rights, any home regardless of ownership structure is protected. So camping in someone's backyard could most definitely be illegal even if you were to introduce freedom to roam :)