this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2023
1212 points (86.6% liked)

Fuck Cars

9675 readers
195 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
[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 39 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Ownership. You will not own your apartment, it will be owned by your landlord and you will pay him whatever he demands. You will not own the forest, either. The state will, or some private entity will. No trespassing.

[–] 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.

[–] neptune@dmv.social 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Iamdanno@lemmynsfw.com -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Condo financing is not available everywhere.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But it should be, that's the point.

[–] Iamdanno@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

While you are wishing for things, wish for me to win the lottery

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

Way to miss the entire point of the thread

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 1 year ago

what no right to roam does to a mfer

[–] firadin@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Have you heard of a national or state park?

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah that’s my main concern. Also less space to store things like my bike.

Then there’s the upstairs neighbors. Like I get that the kids are loud. But also could the kids stop throwing stuff at my bird feeder. And their upstairs neighbors flooded the dang place

[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You can own and apartment. And there's right to roam.

[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

There is no such thing as universal right to roam in the US. Likewise, apartment ownership (we call them "condos" when you can own one rather than rent) exists here, but by far is the minority option in multi-family housing. You can claim you want to buy a condo or apartment as much as you want, but that doesn't do you any good when no one is selling. Units are built to be rented which is a recurring revenue stream, which big capital likes a lot more.

The significant problem is not that nobody is whacking out slabs of apartment housing fast enough. The issue is that our underlying capitalist system is fucked, and a simple anti-car attitude is not going to fix that.