MEDIA WORKERS AND TV RESEARCHERS - Please seek permission before posting on this site or approaching individuals found here by phone or email - write to the Editor - mail to email@example.com
May 2, 2008 at 9:58 am #36396
I can not afford a house, and being middle class, I realise that means I should stay a bachelor and not have a family, I KNOW my place in the world.
Planning laws seem like a good idea to me, I like going for long country walks and filling the countryside with wooden huts,yurts etc. seems a silly idea when we can have high rise flat complexes on brown field city sites.
What ever happened to the idea of, ‘i can not afford it, so i can not have it’ ?May 12, 2008 at 9:24 pm #40204
Yea, but are you OK with other people defining your place in the world. I’m not.
If I build my own house, with my own things, on my own land (we can get into who actually “owns” land another time), then who is the government to say that I cannot do that. If they want to say I can’t sell the house because it is not safe, whatever, I guess people want that kind of protection from the government. If I choose to live in my own structure, safe or unsafe by their standards, that should be up to me.
There should be reasonable regulation (to protect wetlands, minimal space between homes, etc.) that could give you an inexpensive ya or nah, but the existing regulations are excessively prohibitive. This includes rural areas that have plenty of open space where you would be hard pressed to come across another human being let alone a high rise complex. I think we are talking about small, secluded, eco-friendly homes in the woods. If we are talking about congested cities, I think that is a different story due to that fact that cities are already an environmental disaster.
To say, “I can not afford it, so I can not have it” is a little simplistic and I think you are equating the word afford with money. If you can afford the land, you should be able to do what you want as long as you are not hurting the environment or other people (unfortunately this does seem to need to be defined by the government.) If I don’t have the cash, but can “afford” to commit my time and build it myself (at my own risk), I should be able to do that without the government bulldozing my home.May 14, 2008 at 8:32 am #40209
” think we are talking about small, secluded, eco-friendly homes in the woods”
Unsure on this, surely it could produce clustering of new homes, which then become a community,which requires public transport,schools, hospitals etc. etc.
And most people do live near work, and therefore an established community.
“If I choose to live in my own structure, safe or unsafe by their standards, that should be up to me.” … you could use the same arguments against any legislation.June 1, 2008 at 9:58 am #40224
“And most people do live near work, and therefore an established community.”
Only if your definition of living near work is within driving distance, which, as you know, isn’t saying much, reallly.
Most people can not walk to work. And, therefore, many people do not live in established communities that are walkable. This is due to suburban sprawl and zoning regulations, especially Euclidean Zoning, which is the easiest to implement, the most instituionalized and the least flexible and, well, irrational, as it designates large tracts of land as solely residential with set standards – meaning people need to transport elsewhere for groceries or work, etc… I fear our definitions of community vastly differ.June 9, 2008 at 4:23 pm #40237
A reason for planning laws must existJune 10, 2008 at 6:05 pm #40240
“A reason for planning laws must exist”
Yep. And a reason for 42-day detention of terror suspects “must exist”.
The question is; how much of the current planning legislation is overkill for those of us who would just like to live off-grid on our own land in an eco-house and presenting a near-zero carbon footprint?June 11, 2008 at 8:43 am #40242
I agree, an exception should be made for eco homes, that meet some kind of rules i.e. water source, sanitation, waste disposal etc.
But surely they will end up clustering and require local resouces such as schools,hospitals, a fire department etc. etc. ?
Perhaps the answer is to buy a farmhouse ?June 11, 2008 at 10:56 pm #40243
I don’t see why eco-home ‘owners’ would naturally ‘cluster’ any more than other people living in standard on-grid homes in the countryside.
Are you actually worried about more people living in the countryside?
If people live in the countryside and need local resources to support them, why are they any more of a drain on local resources than if they lived in a suburb or city? Surely, the very fact that a family may live on their own (or rented) land in cheap eco-housing and don’t put any strain grid-based resources, means that they are also less likely to put a strain on: road/rail transport networks; the environmental and financial costs of travelling to work to earn high salaries to pay for expensive houses; claiming benefits to pay for their rent and bills; requiring social services intervention for social problems; requiring an eventual means-tested pension; etc.
Buy a farmhouse. Yeah; Right. Don’t you think that that WOULD place you in the category of putting a burden on what you are calling ‘local resources’. What sort of resource-sucking life would you have to lead in order to pay for your >£0.5m farmhouse? Would it be a low-carbon one? Unlikely. Furthermore, what sort of life have you already led in order to afford that property, – and for what real, eventual benefits – compared to living an eco-friendly existence in a woodland?
Last thought: These farmhouses you’re suggesing we should all buy; What (local, national or world) resources have already been used to build them and to keep them all operational since they were built?June 12, 2008 at 7:51 am #40244
i have started reading the book, the problem, as explained in the book, is a vested interest in the property market by those in it
If we reduced regulations regarding farming then I reckon small holdings would be cheaper and more viable, poland has lots of cheap small holdings, the uk does not, we have the land, just not the right to farm it in an economic or eco friendly way that makes sense.June 19, 2008 at 9:55 am #40249
The fundamental answer is to go green and have less kids, and encourage others to do the same, people pollute.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.