5 ms·
> 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.
by 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 agoNo, 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 agoSorry, 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 agoThe dictionary definition is "the area close to where one lives, regarded with proprietorial concern"
- tarboreus 4y agoEr, 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 agoIn 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 agoAs 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 agoFreedom to Roam laws only allow passing through, not littering. Do you foresee people who would litter illegally, but would not trespass illegally?
- sokoloff 4y agoI can foresee that encouraging the roaming brings along some amount of littering among the inconsiderate.
- teddyh 4y agoEven though this is not a significant problem in countries which has such laws?
- belorn 4y agoI 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 agoWell 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 agohow is "a fair distance" specified?
- nkrisc 4y agoThey may not be citing specific law, but instead generally describing the spirit of a broad set of such laws.
- dixie_land 4y agothen 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 agoi 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 agoThe 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 agoVirtually 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 agoIf 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 agoYes, I have a 24 acre backyard
- teddyh 4y agoYour usage of the word “backyard” differs from everybody else’s.
- bergenty 4y agoIt 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