|
|
|
|
|
|
by dheera
1846 days ago
|
|
|
> E.g. you planting a tree right next to a fence may soon block sun to neighbour for a big part of the day. The solution to this is to define land ownership as a 3D space and not a 2D space. It should be a 3D trapezoidal sort of shape, and as long as you keep everything within that it should be allowed. > Access roads, water, waste These are utilities. You pay for access to them > , community space etc This should be optional and you pay IF you want access But hell no they should not be governing aesthetics of something you own. If you can get the right architectural permits and whatnot you should even be allowed to rebuild your house in a different style. That's what ownership means. |
|
|
> The solution to this is to define land ownership as a 3D space and not a 2D space. It should be a 3D trapezoidal sort of shape, and as long as you keep everything within that it should be allowed.
We already have somewhat similar solution. Some stuff is allowed no closer than 3m to fence or needs written neighbour permission. But it does not solve a lot of edge cases. Some fence types need written permission based on how much sun passes through.
> These are utilities. You pay for access to them
It's common that developer builds local private infrastructure for the project. City and/or utility companies manage up to private lot and don't want to take over the last mile.
> This should be optional and you pay IF you want access
And many smartasses would skip paying but jump the fence. Those community spaces do help their property value too.
At the very least paying for access would have to include all costs to install it, not just run.
> If you can get the right architectural permits and whatnot you should even be allowed to rebuild your house in a different style. That's what ownership means.
Wait till you hear restrictions in historical neighbourhoods...