4 ms·
Just imagine you aren't the only person who's health, safety, and "freedom" is under consideration and it should be clear why the majority of people would prefe
by kgwxd 1y ago
Just imagine you aren't the only person who's health, safety, and "freedom" is under consideration and it should be clear why the majority of people would prefer those rules be in place.
- loeg 1y agoThis isn't about health and safety. It's the same kind of zoning NIMBYism that prevents building/living in an apartment, condo, or manufactured housing on your own property.
- Gibbon1 1y agoI have trouble escaping the idea that the schmucks that run muni's are all competing with each other to be more upscale than each other. And mostly that devolves into policies to 'keep the riff raff out'. My ex brother in law used to drive his work truck when visiting his sister and the HOA started threatening to fine her.
- pfannkuchen 1y agoIf they own the land I don’t see how other people would be affected unless they are violating some other laws which could be enforced separately from the RV question (e.g. trash on property, whatever else you are thinking of).
- esseph 1y agoThe main idea is that it negatively impacts their property values, because a home is not a home in a lot of places in the US. A home is the largest financial investment most will make in their lifetime.
- OneMorePerson 1y agoThere's tons of crazy stuff a neighbor could do to affect property values, why single this out specifically for that reason? A clean RV sitting on property is a lot less bad than building a mountain of tires in your front yard or having 40 dogs (random examples)
- esseph 1y agoI'm not saying I agree with it or don't, I'm saying that's the common reason you'll hear from any of the HOA types, real estate developers / appraisers, etc.
- OneMorePerson 1y agoAh got it, yeah fair enough that is probably the most common reason for it that I've heard too
- mathiaspoint 1y agoOr a tent since you might as well not invest a ton into what you're doing as it's illegal.
- AtariATMHacker 1y ago[dead]
- kgwxd 1y agoIf everyone had 5 acres of land to themselves, probably wouldn't much, but the population is far too big for that. The laws exist for that reason. The way those laws might effect specific scenarios, is a different issue completely. You're free to suggest changes to the laws to cover those scenarios, but good luck getting enough people to care about your edge case enough to risk introducing loop-holes that could make conditions worse for most other people.
- AtariATMHacker 1y ago[dead]