this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2023
1203 points (86.6% liked)

Fuck Cars

9628 readers
794 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] J4g2F@lemmy.ml 39 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You can still own and buy appartements in most places in the world. Then there are many forms of social housing.

Rent to own is also a possibility but not seen in most countries.

Seems your problem is not ownership but landlords.

Some countries in Europe have the right to roam on any land. State owned and private owned. (Maybe more countries somewhere else have it to but I don't know)

It does not need to be so terrible. In some places it just is because of profits

[–] neatchee@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Owning an apartment and owning land are wildly different. The housing structure alone is not the entirety of home ownership.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Since we're just talking hypotheticals anyway, let's say in the second image the land is actually owned by the owners of the apartments, like a co-op.

[–] neatchee@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That's still not ownership. That's co-ownership. I'm not free to do what I want with it, when I want.

Same reason I hate HOAs

[–] hypelightfly@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I own my house and don't have an HOA. Guess what?

Still can't do whatever I want with it when I want. Still need to get permits and follow local/state regulations.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

But those regulations tend to be more sane.

Oh, you planted zoysia grass and maintain it well? That's "inharmonious" , you need to tear that out and plant fescue.

You don't have a maple tree of at least 8 feet in height in a particular spot in your yard? Inharmonious again, you need to buy a tree, can't wait for a sapling to grow.

Your driveway has dirt on it? You must get it pressure washed.

You want to park your vehicle in your driveway? It better not have any branding from a company on it, or it better not be an older car or any pickup truck, those are too ugly for our precious neighborhood.

Regulations tend to be "don't make fire hazards", or "don't block streets", generally you can't get a regulation on the books without an actual rationale behind it.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The vast majority of places where you own a house, you still can't do whatever you want.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Whatever reasonable thing you want will tend to fly though. Versus HOA which often dictate crazy restrictions.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Which would be less of a problem if there were more housing stock.

But also, we need regulations on HOAs.