I mean, it is 100% fair to say a region will never get some types of utilities, or postal service, as it is part of city/environmental planing. They can also prohibit regions to have septic tanks, etc, for the same reasons. Thats fair, I guess?

But why would they go as far as punish people that are using compost toilets, being environmentally friendly and largely self sufficient in small lots?

Have you ever smelled a compost toilet? (It stinks up an entire area) I certainly don't want to be smelling your composting poo while I'm sitting on my back porch eating dinner (or worse, while sitting in my dining room eating dinner with the windows open).

If you want to do that, move out to the country(rural areas) where you have space.

Your freedoms end where they infringe on others freedoms. Because some people don't understand that (or don't care), governments step in and say "You can't do that".

I guess you're not familiar with modern composting toilets.

They have become very popular replacement heads (toilets) in small boats, for instance. Where the toilet and composting container is often within inches of your sleeping area due to very limited space. Smell is a non-issue even in such tight quarters.

A land-based neighbor dozens of feet (or more) away stands no chance of smelling anything.

I imagine it's similar to a yard waste compost pile. If it's not done right the smell can get pretty bad, but a proper one should have little to no problem with smell.

That's false. Composting toilets can easily be odor free.

Also, to round out your treatise on freedoms you really need to mention that serious problems can be posed by poorly maintained or designed septic systems, holding tanks, and municipal sewage treatment facilities (beyond offensive odors). To boot, our habit of using clean drinking water to transport urine and feces is simply ... wasteful.

> with the right separation of pee/poop

How does one do this logistically? Does this mean a compost system where you have two distinct toilets/containers for each of those bodily functions?

Help me understand why you think you have a Freedom to Smell Nice Things? If you were to file a nuisance complaint for "bad smell next door" (the action one can take in my locality), would you base it on this so-called freedom? If this person is following codes/guidelines for composting, wouldn't you be the Karen in the situation? Does this difference in lifestyle - your viewing the neighbor composting as a "bad neighbor" - come down to differing values?

IMO, this Freedom to Smell Nice Things does not exist. Cities smell, sometimes good, sometimes bad. Suburbs too - my suburb offers no compost service, and everyone's garbage composts in city-provided bins...it stinks. You suggested going rural, but that seems a romantic notion - the winds are your neighbors and the smell can often be worse than the city depending on where you are located.

"... certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" - US Constitution (enormously grateful for the sacrifices made to keep those freedoms)

You are right that it comes down to different values. I choose to live where these things are enforced, and you can choose, if you wish, to live where they are not.

I do like the sound of [parts] your first paragraph, where people are responsible about how they spread their poo on their garden right next to my garden... however, consider that same situation with an irresponsible (or ignorant) peerson spreading their poo on their garden right next to your garden. Considering how rain and water flow works, you have a not-unlikely possibility of ingesting their poo (and enjoying whatever diseases follow).

I'm glad poo-handling is regulated.

That is quite a stretch. As an American I'm rolling my eyes :)

I guess I'm still not understanding how a composting neighbor is a bad neighbor? I'm not arguing against enforcing correct composting, I'm simply trying to understand why your comment makes it seem like any type of composting makes someone a bad neighbor? If your argument is that participating in a regulated activity (composting here) and not following guidelines (dumping ill-prepared compost on the ground), well that seems obvious - there are lots of regulated activities we participate in daily!

In trying to understand the "bad neighbor" comment, I sought out my local government's guidance. Where I live - highly dense county with a major city - the local government has a recommendation on their website to "Consider installing a composting toilet that converts human waste to nutrient-rich fertilizer for non-food plants and uses little to no potable water for flushing." which to me implies being a good neighbor (https://kingcounty.gov/depts/dnrp/solid-waste/programs/green...).

Think of this as more like an area permanently deeded for a certain kind of activity, with the existing belief (encoded into law) being that permanent living there is in conflict with that activity.

I think it's fine to argue that this belief is wrong, and that living permanently in the structure that is permitted to be on the allotment is just fine. I might even agree with you.

But in general, it also seems fine to me that communities can mark out certain places as being for only a specific set of activities, and exclude others from taking place there.

It does seem fine, at first, but the end result is the housing crisis, because people, having been given this power, will work very hard to ensure that expensive single-family homes with multiple parking spots and generous setbacks are the only living arrangement that's legal. (Let's not forget that people also marked out racial boundaries, when they were allowed to do that, too. When you let homeowners set housing-use policy, you get...bad results.)

Sure, some would be prime real estate but I’d rather have a few of these co-ops mixed into the cities than just private housing projects everywhere.

That said, I think that a concept similar to zoning is probably a good one to have on hand, particularly for uses like greenspace of various sorts. It's use does need to carefully controlled/moderated.

Seems like the blame for the housing crisis lies a lot more with landlords who'd rather kick out a tenant paying X for a new tenant able to pay out X*y - if you have more people moving in than moving out, and existing landlords can simply choose to serve the new, wealthier ones, you're going to have a problem. If you couldn't take advantage of the migration simply by choosing to rent to the higher-income and kick out your existing tenants, maybe the politically-connected multiple-property-owners would figure out a way to get more construction going. We used to have both rent control and more densification than we have today.

But, second, any objection that places the blame on "greedy landlords" is a total nonstarter. Everybody is responding to their incentives. Landlords aren't greedier than anybody else. If widget makers could set higher prices, they would. They don't because they can't, not because they're "less greedy."

SF is the second-densest "large" city in the US. I haven't found specific numbers, but looking at zoning maps at least 50% of the residential space is zoned for single-family homes only, with the majority of the remainder explicitly zoned for low-density residences. A big chunk of the city is basically a suburb! The rest of the Bay Area, of course, is more like 90% single-family housing. This year Berkeley passed a resolution removing single-family zoning throughout the entire city so perhaps the tides are shifting, but even if zoning laws and politics change, it'll take decades for this to meaningfully affect the housing supply.

There's land out on the periphery that hasn't yet been used for housing, but look: we urgently need to get our emissions under control because the course we're on will be catastrophic for the planet. Urban sprawl is massively inefficient.

Buying a house cannot entitle you to the neighborhood around you never changing if we are to have any hope of dealing with this mess. Change is part of life.

But I don't care what they want.

It's not up to them. It's illegitimate to tell a property owner that they can't build a duplex on their own property. It's an illegal taking. It's not up to a vote. My neighbor's opinion is irrelevant.

> There are plenty of places people for people to live and build.

Indeed, there are plenty of places to live and build and the burden is on those who don't want anyone to build near them to move to some place new if they don't like what their neighbors are doing. You have the burden exactly backwards. If you don't like what people are choosing to do on their own private property, then you can move. You shouldn't be allowed to tell everyone else to stop building.

As you can see, the land and real state market changes. Things used to be accessible, today many people flee to barely legal situations just because it is too expensive otherwise. What used to be desirable in one area might change over time, and punishing the first ones to try seem too harsh to me.

Reason is that they are located in areas where actual residential construction is likely in foreseeable future. So on one hand, it would be a waste to keep the land completely unused, but on the other, building anything permanent there would be a waste too because it will need to be razed quite soon.

On the other hand, if you still keep the tiny home low cost, easy for decommissioning and/or demolishing, why would government go as far as punish someone who is doing no harm whatsoever?

I take no offense or issue with city planing and even community planing. What I do believe is going too far, is to punish preemptively even when no actual harm was done. The rule say "no living" but the meaning is "be temporary and easy to dispose". So living there while respecting the community goal should not be punishable, instead, just recognize the goals were kept in spirit.

These exist in the States as well (though not nearly at the level and cultural significance as in the UK) as "community gardens," and exist in many other countries as well. I don't think any of the cities that provide these parcels for gardening would allow people to simply build a house and live there instead.

Easy. Governments need to be sure that there is enough soils and fields and pasture around to produce food or at some point we run into problems. Also, governments like its citizens happy (bear with me) so for instance they prevent open air industrial poultry breeding next to houses, make maps with sections dedicated to farming/pastures/residential occupations, etc. You also cannot build anything you want on the land you bought and own: a 600 meters tall jenga building next to a highway or a your own giant windmill for example.

Living in a tribe grants benefits but it also cut on some of our liberties.

You don't own the land of an allotment. You rent it from the local council, usually for many years, but you don't own it. Sometimes there's an option to "buy" it so there is no rent but you still don't own the actual land, no title is ever assigned to it or to you. You just get permanent right to use it.

imagine buying a rural land to get away from the city bustle and a developer builds high density apartment next to your place. or buying an apartment in the city only for someone to demolish blocks around you and turn it into farmland so you are not as conveniently close to shops and facilities.

Sometimes rules are written too narrow and need adjustment. Following it blindly is not necessarily serving society optimally. If the actual goal is to have places people can garden, and have a large span of green land in that region, the single student living there is still following the objetive in spirit. In my opinion punishing would be going to far and serving no or little purpose for the community.

Try to build a duplex in your neighborhood and you'll really find out how far people will go to punish you for living as you wish on land you bought and own.

I certainly imagine there are lots of flaws in my ideas, but it would be nice to see steps away from the assumption that each of us has a long term residence we can get mail at. Just like you used to need to provide a "home telephone", it's becoming less valid of an assumption.

Like you say though, its probably not high enough on many peoples agendas, and is threatening enough to tax revenues (it would mean competition if nothing else) that it's unlikely to happen

The #1 thing the USPS could have done to retain customers would be to have an actual sane forwarding service. I just had a company I worked at 10 years ago call me for an updated address because I had mail that kept going there after being returned from an address I had 5 years ago...

I wish I could just tell the USPS my current address, and instead just list an address for leters that would forward to my actual address.

(yes this exists as a forwarding service, but we could skip all that)

There is no good reason that I should need to give someone literal directions to my physical house, just so they can send a letter to me. Only the post office (and other delivery companies) need to know the physical address to send their trucks to.

> USPS is now piloting a new technology platform: Informed Address (IA).

> This innovative concept enables mail to be sent and delivered without a consumer’s physical address. Instead, Informed Address allows recipients to use identifiers including an email address, social media handles, or a custom name for mail processing and delivery functions.

> As privacy remains a top concern, Informed Address will replace the delivery point with a unique code where the usual IMB (Intelligent Mail Barcode) is substituted with an “Informed Address IMB”, which contains the physical address information. This allows customers the enhanced privacy and identity protection, as marketers will no longer need to obtain or hold a physical address for their mail communications.

> During the testing period, the USPS will assess consumer engagement, gauge mailer interest, and determine technical feasibility. This new technology provides the opportunity for marketers to provide additional services, including vanity address development and enhanced consumer targeting for B2B and B2C marketing.

Would that be legal in the US? It sure wouldn't be in most of Europe because you don't live there. Which for some fucking reason is a must.

Yeah, it is in fact very harmful to homeless, refugees, and even common immigrants ("expats"), among other groups. In some countries, you need a registered or confirmed address for things like opening a bank account, getting a prepaid phone, or even getting a job. Not having those things also prevents you from getting a home, so it's a vicious circle.

But to rent a place, several of them required me to have a family income that was only enough if I had my wife with me, but since we weren't married officially yet, it didn't count.

There could presumably be a "no fixed address" category at the federal level but don't hold your breath as this is an outlier among people who earn enough to pay taxes and would absolutely be abused if it existed.

I actually agree there is an edge case of people who are nomadic for at least a period who genuinely don't have a fixed address and have to "fake it." I'm also not sure it's a large enough category to institute the significant changes needed to deal with it.

Just send all mail to that, if notice of a fine doesn't reach you, proceed as if it was ignored. Seems reasonable to me.

OK, I can see it now with remote work being common (why live in a CoL state then?), but these laws are way older than that.

Lots of things factor into where people live. I live in a fairly high CoL location and could move pretty much anywhere in the US I wanted to. But I have a house and like where I am for various reasons so moving is unlikely.

That seems a bit extreme

Maybe "you'll lose access to the allotment" would be more clear.